Wow some terrible reporting about Google's latest horrible ideas about how to distort information access in the name of "convenience" (or something):
-
Wow some terrible reporting about Google's latest horrible ideas about how to distort information access in the name of "convenience" (or something):
https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/19/google-search-as-you-know-it-is-over/
A short thread
🧵>>@emilymbender #FuckAI #BoycottGoogle 'Nuff said!
-
We don't have to buy this journalist's view of the future as already written by Google. Every time you click through to look at the actual source page you are helping to maintain our information ecosystem and build a better world.
/fin (for now)
@emilymbender
I guess you are already aware of the "CEO said a thing" concept. -
@emilymbender Thank you for this summary and analysis!
@tero @emilymbender Yes, thank you, Dr. Bender!
Earlier, I had read that Google wanted to display webpages in a way AI determined was better than your own design but now I guess they won't even show any original webpages at all. -
@nicoe @Qybat @emilymbender why "embed" ads when you can manipulate information in a way that curates the "search result" so it positions the paid-for "goals" as the only valid options or cast in the most "positive" light. Which is a problem when the business is motivated by ads revenue. And a bigger one when politics get involved. A reality distortion on a massive scale.
@simpleanecdote @Qybat @emilymbender yeah that's what my embed was about, it will be just like product placing in the movies, you don't see them but they're there and they shape what's normal and desirable
-
NO NO NO NO NO! Flashy polished looking webpages that no one has accountability for run absolutely counter to the common good when it comes to a health information ecosystem AND an informed public.
(Also, "Antigravity"? Yeah, you want us to think this is very cool science fiction and/or magic. Not buying it.)
>>
@emilymbender It is "antigravity" in the marketing/community-management sense of "gravity." It'll definitely push everyone away...
-
We don't have to buy this journalist's view of the future as already written by Google. Every time you click through to look at the actual source page you are helping to maintain our information ecosystem and build a better world.
/fin (for now)
@emilymbender So long, Googles.
-
NO NO NO NO NO! Flashy polished looking webpages that no one has accountability for run absolutely counter to the common good when it comes to a health information ecosystem AND an informed public.
(Also, "Antigravity"? Yeah, you want us to think this is very cool science fiction and/or magic. Not buying it.)
>>
@emilymbender so we won't know what's AI slop and what's a real site?
-
Wow some terrible reporting about Google's latest horrible ideas about how to distort information access in the name of "convenience" (or something):
https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/19/google-search-as-you-know-it-is-over/
A short thread
🧵>>@emilymbender My bigger worry is if they start ensloppifying scholar.google.com. Zotero Connector eats it right up. Semantic Scholar isn't a patch on it for grabbing bibliographic records and tracking references, I have seen noticeable distortion in its results. Their pipeline is somewhat ML driven but they do use LLM summaries. This is expected given the origins of the service. Provenance is everything.
-
Wow some terrible reporting about Google's latest horrible ideas about how to distort information access in the name of "convenience" (or something):
https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/19/google-search-as-you-know-it-is-over/
A short thread
🧵>>@emilymbender These companies desperately want to stop us from finding & enjoying each other's content. Walled gardens of social media & mega platforms weren't enough, now the search directories will be the ultimate walled garden.
All built on stealing the work of everyone who's ever published anything online.
Why would anyone create anything anymore? I already feel my own desire to blog is waning.
-
Here is where it really starts to show that this journalist is just lightly paraphrasing a press release. "Links will become an afterthought," will they? What is your evidence for that confident statement about the future?
>>
@emilymbender Silly, you're acting like there's any need for links. To do what? Check the veracity of the AI-generated wisdom and information being provided to you by the high priests of Google?? Heresy! Blasphemy!! How durst thee???
-
More stenography here. Google starting shoving the "AI Overviews" into query results as an opt-out situation. That is, you have to take action to have them not pop up. I don't doubt they are *shown to* 2.5 billion monthly users, but that doesn't mean they are used by as many or desired by them.
>>
@emilymbender, that was exactly the point at which I started configuring browsers to add “&udm=14” to all searches done via G
gle.Most recent case? I noticed that Calibre does word lookup. It will happily do so via G
gle; and, yes, the slop summary is shown. -
For one final shudder: Pichai here seems to want to think this is helping the world somehow? Gah.
>>
@emilymbender, he's mostly right. It definitely is helping the world… burn.
-
But all the academic papers in the world showing why something is a bad idea won't stop companies from doing it, if it's profitable and/or fits into their quasi-religious beliefs that "AI" is the future, alas.
So let's look at what Google is up to now, or at least says they are, via TechCrunch as stenographer:
>>
@emilymbender Sometimes it feels like these people are trying to create a world from science fiction stories. For example, in Star Trek when they ask the computer something and it just gives them the answer. They don't understand that plenty of science fiction has no basis in reality and/or are terrible for how our brains actually work (like you've pointed out).
That or they are just greedy bastards that are looking to exploit anyone and everyone for a profit.
-
More stenography here. Google starting shoving the "AI Overviews" into query results as an opt-out situation. That is, you have to take action to have them not pop up. I don't doubt they are *shown to* 2.5 billion monthly users, but that doesn't mean they are used by as many or desired by them.
>>
@emilymbender wait! You can opt out?!
-
@mrmoore @emilymbender they don't want you to see the pages the search results link to, so they're trying to recreate that experience within search. Once you no longer check the sources, they can claim those sources say whatever Google wants them to have said
@sleepfreeparent @mrmoore @emilymbender Also they can show their ads on their platform without those pesky users nipping off to see the source of the information (and possibly supporting it in any way).
-
How infantilizing --- you thought you were looking to find something that someone else wrote on the web. But woah! Now you've been "dropped into" an "interactive experience". Yeah, Google can just fuck right off with that.
>>
@emilymbender Oh, goodie. They've invented a guy who barges between you and the library shelves and proceeds to give you his vague recollection of what some of the books say. Sort of. Maybe. Unless he decides you were actually looking for something else.
-
@whitequark @emilymbender surely. `import antigravity` in python, about 20+ years ago
-
@whitequark @emilymbender surely. `import antigravity` in python, about 20+ years ago
@jackeric @emilymbender doesn't make it less cringe, of course
-
@jackeric @emilymbender doesn't make it less cringe, of course
@whitequark @emilymbender indeed
-
Wow some terrible reporting about Google's latest horrible ideas about how to distort information access in the name of "convenience" (or something):
https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/19/google-search-as-you-know-it-is-over/
A short thread
🧵>>@emilymbender
Good thing they block adblockers then aye?
