Rather than create search that doesn't suck ass, Google puts effort into crap like this.
forbes.com/sites/joetoscano1/2…
(and yes, I know the difference between a patent and a product, reply-guys and sea lions and AI fanboys)
Rather than create search that doesn't suck ass, Google puts effort into crap like this.
forbes.com/sites/joetoscano1/2…
(and yes, I know the difference between a patent and a product, reply-guys and sea lions and AI fanboys)
Petra van Cronenburg
in reply to funnymonkey • • •In my professional searches, I’m coming across these fake sites more and more often, and indeed, the genuine ones are becoming invisible.
The fact that this can be patented, adds another layer of horror. But what’s even more alarming is that the politicians who should be enacting laws barely understand this issue anymore and are missing the boat.
Do you still have hope for real websites?
funnymonkey
in reply to Petra van Cronenburg • • •@NatureMC I suspect we will have two webs: the version controlled by big tech, and a much, much smaller version that is largely reputation based and is shaped by things analogous to webrings with discovery via resource lists.
Big potential plus: the corporate web will be a blend of saccharine content, ragebait, and dark patterns - so a subset of people will use it less and get outside more.
Petra van Cronenburg
in reply to funnymonkey • • •That means a big disruption because the web is much bigger than in the 1990s.
For some scientific searches, e.g., I use special platforms, "knots", websites of organisations. The downside: Such websites can get broken or even abandoned. If you can't find the #knowledge, it get's lost. And the amount of working time is immense.
Privately, I'm getting into #zines again. But when I see that my blog gets more clicks by scraping bots than people, I become pessimist.
funnymonkey
in reply to Petra van Cronenburg • • •Petra van Cronenburg
in reply to funnymonkey • • •Frank Aylward
in reply to funnymonkey • • •funnymonkey reshared this.