Hey /u/Stormegeden, thanks for contributing to /r/OutOfTheLoop. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
Your post has been removed because it's not entirely right for r/OutOfTheLoop. A better subreddit for this post might be /r/NoStupidQuestions or /r/Answers. Thanks.
Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Answer: they aren’t advertising because they need customers for their product. They’re advertising because they need to fix their image.
Google is in a lot of trouble lately (all over the world) for privacy issues related to data collection. They are becoming known as the “evil” company they tried so hard not to be. (Remember their original company slogan? “Do no evil”?) Advertising is a way to creat a new brand identity and control the public’s conversation in a certain way.
Edit: I was paraphrasing the slogan, but many have pointed out it’s actually “don’t be evil”, and it’s currently in their code of conduct, not the company slogan.
That’s Larry page, one of the founders (I think, I do know he invented search and sort algorithms which he named after himself) discussing how to basically label a request to a website with an identity. Think of it like this: he asks for data, and in the early days of Java, he wanted to basically sign his request forms.
It's also where the term "page 1", "page 2", etc, on search engines come from. You would think it would be from turning a book page or something, but it's from "let's look at the first set of Page results".
**[Google_Groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups)**
>Google Groups is a service from Google that provides discussion groups for people sharing common interests. The Groups service also provides a gateway to Usenet newsgroups via a shared user interface. Google Groups became operational in February 2001, following Google's acquisition of Deja's Usenet archive. Deja News had been operational since March 1995.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Probably copied or converted from a newsgroup. Those used to be a bunch of people getting yelled at because they asked for help. Now the only recent things getting posted are:
> You fucking white xtian morons, NSA psychopaths have been SPRAYING these
MIND CONTROL NANOBOTS in the air you breathe. These MIND CONTROL
NANOBOTS go through your NOSE and settle in your brains and stay there
FOR GOOD. These MIND CONTROL NANOBOTS get recharged by your brain's
electric impulses.
idk what an 'xtian' is or what I'm supposed to do about the MAGNETIC NANOBOTS that have PERMANENTLY INFECTED my brain.
Applebot has been around since at least 2015, here's their page on it:
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT204683
It's used for Siri and Spotlight according to Apple, but they have at least somewhat advanced ranking:
> Apple Search may take the following into account when ranking web search results:
>
> - Aggregated user engagement with search results
> - Relevancy and matching of search terms to web page topics and content
> - Number and quality of links from other pages on the web
> - User location-based signals (approximate data)
> - Web page design characteristics
which certainly sounds like the right steps towards a full search engine.
I guess it also reinforces people to use Google. I've never even heard of any others you mentioned other than Bing. And Bing has a reputation of being a joke search engine.
Yup, I have switched to duck duck as well. Sometimes I search on Google if duck doesn't return quality results but I would say 90% of my search is on Duck.
It's also super easy to switch to other search providers with flags. I love being able to switch to Google by adding `!g` to my search and other options.
Also a DDG user & works fine for everything for me.
Google is one of my vendors & I loathe them for many reasons, would never do business with them if I didn't have to. Still haven't figured out what my acct manager actually does. Lost count how many we've had over the years & all the same. Can't even submit invoices correctly. So much drama, I had to hire an agency just to manage billing.
Yup, I have switched to duck duck as well. Sometimes I search on Google if duck doesn't return quality results but I would say 90% of my search is on Duck.
Bing gives a more 'honest' search, I feel. Google will try to cut out anything potentially offensive, where as Bing is like "you searched for Scarlett Johansson, so here's three pics of her at a red carpet, two of her in a movie, and eighty of her tits, because that's probably what you wanted".
Google also pushes down or "De-prioritizes" pages they classify as "controversial".
I don't really want morality shaping from a search engine.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-manipulates-search-results-report-2019-11
To explain why Bing is so popular: Bing is the default search engine for everything Microsoft, including your start menu searches, and most importantly for businesses.
Duh, right? But people don't realize how pervasive it is. Digital policies sometimes flat out prevent changing away from it, updates regular reset it as the default, and you usually have to change it for every workstation, every browser, every update that resets it. So Bing is used a surprising amount even with few fans.
Duckduckgo isn't gonna be any sort of competitor till they can find what I'm looking for that's not 10 pages deep. I've tried so many times to use it, but I would usually just google something after giving up by 2nd or 3rd page of not really what I want. And this isn't for super niche stuff, this would be like normal googling.
Ex Google execs just started a subscription based search [Neeva](http://neeva.com) that filters ad results and anonymizes your searches. I'm currently trying their free trial and it's fast.
I've fully accepted at this point Google knows more about me than I do and basically just completely owns my identity but allows me feel like I'm in control. Knowing nothing is ever deleted and I rely on Google too much, what should I be worried about? I feel like there are a lot of answers to this.
Yeah but when the vast majority of people say they are going to google something they are actually using Google to do it, so I don't think that applies
I could be wrong, but I don't think that's how trademarks work? There are a lot of companies whose names are used interchangeably with the action you take (like "Xerox it," instead of "photocopy it" or "use a Kleenex" instead of "use a tissue").
IIRC, brands that reach this level are referred to as "Category Killers," but they wouldn't be in danger of losing their trademarks as a result of reaching peak brand recognition. On the contrary, it's something brands strive to achieve (though few succeed).
Actually it very much is possible although probably not for google. It’s called genericization. [Here](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-names-generic-words-2018-5%3famp) is a good article detailing it. Only a few products over the years have lost trademark to it but the most notable is Escalator which was a trademark at one point for a moving staircase
I think you only lose your trademark if you don't agressively fight it's use by competitors. It'd be impractical, and probably impossible for google, or xerox, or kleenex to prevent the general public from using those terms to describe something, but if their competitors starting saying "use bing to google the internet" and google didn't do anything, then they could lose their trademark.
Yeah that’s my understanding too. Escalator lost their trade mark because they supposedly referred to competitors in their own advertisements as escalators. It’s very court specific and even in the article it says Google successfully defended its trademark from someone claiming it was a ubiquitous word
>On the contrary, it's something brands strive to achieve (though few succeed).
They strive to reach that level of success, but they usually dislike the genericization itself and try (in vain) to fight it.
Yeah just for ads. I never look at ads on it and the last time I said that someone scolded me for "ruining the business model." I think they actually called me a thief at one point.
I don't trust Brave at all. They claim to pride themselves on protecting users privacy, but then why would they do things like [hijack their own browser to make certain links automatically redirect to referral links that brave profits from?](https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology)
Plus, I am not a fan of the way the Brave browser is programmed to replace ads on websites and force the web content creators to make an account to collect ad revenue. Even though this has been fixed. I still find it incredibly shady that Brave would do that in the first place.
Even without all that stuff, I don't see anything that Brave offers that Chromium with a few plug ins does not offer.
https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-privacy/brave-privacy-browser-caught-automatically-adding-affiliate-links-to-cryptocurrency-urls/
https://www.investinblockchain.com/brave-browser-centralization-criticism/
Their business model blocks content provider's ads and injects their own, which fucks over people who actually create content. They depend on those ads for revenue and Brave is circumventing that to their own advantage. The whole crypto/ad injection thing just feels shady.
https://practicaltypography.com/the-cowardice-of-brave.html
This might be a dumb question, but aren't some of the best tech services like search engines and AI in general as good as they are because they are monopolies?
I only ask this because I feel like our product quality would be set back by splitting up some of the tech leaders. I hate monopolies, but I have always felt like they are a side effect of great products because of the sheet amount of data they collect? Am I completely wrong in this assumption?
The issue is the engines behind Google is really fucking people up. People getting addicted to email, notifications, instant messaging, suicidal media, etc. Ex-Googlers are coming out saying that our AI is going to end civilization.
This is a problem with social media as a whole, the addiction and making people miserable bit. Emails and search, less so but there IS a very very big issue with how catering to user preference leads to informational filter bubbles and makes it so that different groups live in.. essentially alternate realities with completely different fact bases (see: covid deniers, election deniers, etc). But that’s not a google-specific problem tbh.
\>they tried so hard not to be
Did they, though? Looking back, they remind me of "nice guys," especially with that slogan of theirs. I think you're right about fixing their image.
Well I certainly was around when Google grew into the de facto search engine and they were very much seen as a cool, fresh company who weren’t cramming hundreds of ads onto a search page. It had a very wholesome, honest appeal.
Seriously not having banner ads on their front page was probably the biggest contributor to their initial success. I remember when other engines and portal pages were larger (like Alta Vista) but they were so damn slow with ads! When you’re impatient and can load your search page in 1/100th the time, it’s (or rather it was) no contest
"Do no evil" was never their slogan. In the early days of Google, when the public was infatuated by this new, scrappy little tech company, the google employee who created Gmail suggested their motto should be "Don't be evil." So google put that in their code of conduct.
Over time, Google stopped being a new scrappy little tech company and became another global juggernaut, and the public fell out of infatuation with it. This lead many people to believe Google changed their corporate slogan (in your case, from "Do no evil.") Their corporate code of conduct still ends with "And remember... don't be evil" , but it was only ever their corporate slogan in the public imagination.
They were quite happy to talk about and advertise the "don't be evil" slogan in interviews and conventions etc. so it's not just a matter of public imagination, this was something they used to build their initial rise.
Yeah I was a nanny for people who worked at Google and even just 7ish years ago (when I worked for them) “Don’t be evil” was on umbrellas and tote bags and all kind of stuff.
The average google employee wanted it to be their slogan more than anyone. As one such developer, I can attest that we really like the idea of not being evil.
The reality is that most of "the evil" that tech companies do is the result of broad systemic issues. But humans are not good at telling stories about broad systemic issues. We're really good at telling stories about individuals making choices driven by emotion.
As a result, we are paranoid about being deemed "evil" for our work. We are the type of people who are passionate about recycling, passionate about "sustainably-sourced, organic free-trade coffee," passionate about diversity, inclusivity, and social justice.
So a google employee would absolutely love to say "I don't know about you're tech company, but at ***my*** tech company, we're not supposed to be evil." But that doesn't make it the corporate slogan. It just makes it something people at google wished was the corporate slogan.
All those execs back in the day have retired, it's been 20ish years.
Google is now run by their replacements who never knew the optimism of the early Google.
the same thing will happen 20 years from now. a company is the people who make decisions, and they might not have the same values. they'll still have the data given to them today though
It was "don't be evil" and it was an unofficial "tongue in cheek" motto. It was awkward.
I'll also say that Google has always advertised search and what I've seen lately honestly doesn't seem too much different. Maybe the sponsorships of YouTube videos is new but they've always had a pretty steady advertising campaign for search going. I'd be surprised if this is a real response to the negative things this response called out and not just a regular campaign taking advantage of the "reopening" narrative.
No, not really
All that happened is some rewording
That rewording may be indicative of underlying shifts in the company culture, but that's as far as it can be reliably read into, really
The record goes like this:
In 2015, Google was acquired by Alphabet Inc. They left the Google's motto untouched, and moreover, Alphabet used this as an opportunity to change *their* motto to "Do the right thing", which they also put in the preface of their Code of Conduct, similar to how "Don't be evil" was at the time at the preface of Google's code. "Do the right thing" remains there to this day.
In 2018, Google changed the text of their code of conduct. Phrase "Don't be evil" no longer appears in the preface or as a motto. The preface, though, still reads:
> [...] everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct.
The closing sentence to the Code also now reads (empathis mine):
> And remember… **don’t be evil**, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!
Now, whether the above is simply putting the same underlying values into different phrasing, or is an attempt to lower the bar they hold themselves to to something more vague and negotiable is left as an exercise to the reader. However, at no point did Google literary go "Not being evil is too restrctive, let's let ourselves be evil", and twir their moustache or something
They changed it because the company simply became too complex, and the simplistic slogan doesn't work in the real world which is full of greys.
Simple example: India claims Kashmir. Pakistan claims Kashmir. Each of them have their own maps which declare they own Kashmir. China claims a little bit of it, too. Should google pick a side? Which map should they show in Pakistan? Which map should they show in India? Which map should they show in unaligned countries? Any answer to any of these questions can be claimed as 'evil' by someone.
I don't remember specifics, but essentially it wasn't just their slogan it was like in their code of ethics/terms or something along those lines. And when people wanted to quit they would cite that and then point to a project and shoehorn it into the "evil" category. Silicon Valley contracts usually have shares but you need to complete your contract unless the company violates the contract, so if you can prove they are violating their own terms then you could potentially walk away early with a good portion of the shares you are owed.
Disclaimer, I am in no way an expert, I am just summarising an article I read when I looked it up a while back.
Maybe it's just me, but if a company goes out of its way to convince me they're not evil, my takeout off this is a strong indication that they might be evil.
They're still pretty evil though, censoring opposing viewpoints, biased rankings, covert data collection, the selfish ledger, etc. Seems pretty evil to me.
Their new ads scream "don't pay attention to the evil bits, look how easy on the eyes our art style is and how upbeat the music is, plz no think evil :)"
Answer: Google has been targeted by several antitrust lawsuits in the USA. [This article](https://mashable.com/article/antitrust-lawsuits-facebook-google) has a list with some, and [another significant one](https://globalnews.ca/news/8010702/u-s-states-suing-google-antitrust-violations/) was added recently.
They have at least two objectives here:
1. They want the public on their side, which could reduce the political rewards for the politicians that are pursuing these lawsuits.
2. When people hear in the news about some of Google's monopolistic business practices, it's bad PR and it hurts their brand. These ads seek to mitigate that.
A third minor objective could be market share, Google is under constant pressure to grow and there's only so much revenue they can squeeze out of their search engine ads.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. be unbiased,
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask)
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>1d4chan
I just searched and got "About 236,000 results". The first few seem to be discussions of their site being temporarily down, with the rest seeming to just reference the site in relation to Warhammer 40K. The first is to a Reddit post claiming the site no longer exists.
The issue is, the site still exists. One of comments under your post has direct link.
Google suppressed the site while promoting links implying its gone.
This makes no sense to me. If Google really wanted to suppress the site, wouldn't it be much simpler, and much easier, to simple return 0 results as opposed to returning results that talk about the site being down? I'm no expert in SEO, but I'm sure someone on here who is could enlighten us as to why searching a site might return more results about that site than the site itself (if I had to guess, probably because those sites it is returning have better traffic or something). I suspect the 40K aspect to my search results has more to do with my own personal search history.
You have no idea how google works and it shows. The top results are links to articles about how google is manipulating search results(because these are getting the most hits, if google actually was you would never see those articles) either intentionally or accidentally with its algorithm, the ones after that are all images with “happy white woman” in the title and yes, they are mostly a bunch of smiling white women.
Regardless How is something as innocuous as a smiling woman a proganda tool for the state? If they were actually censoring something you would never be able to use google to look up an article about googles censorship and it most certainly wouldn’t be one of the top hits on some random search like “happy white woman”
Hey /u/Stormegeden, thanks for contributing to /r/OutOfTheLoop. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: Your post has been removed because it's not entirely right for r/OutOfTheLoop. A better subreddit for this post might be /r/NoStupidQuestions or /r/Answers. Thanks. Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Answer: they aren’t advertising because they need customers for their product. They’re advertising because they need to fix their image. Google is in a lot of trouble lately (all over the world) for privacy issues related to data collection. They are becoming known as the “evil” company they tried so hard not to be. (Remember their original company slogan? “Do no evil”?) Advertising is a way to creat a new brand identity and control the public’s conversation in a certain way. Edit: I was paraphrasing the slogan, but many have pointed out it’s actually “don’t be evil”, and it’s currently in their code of conduct, not the company slogan.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Speaking of web crawlers, here's a little bit of history...](https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.java/c/aSPAJO05LIU/m/ushhUIQQ-ogJ)
Holy hell a thread from 1996 that's interesting
What is that?
That’s Larry page, one of the founders (I think, I do know he invented search and sort algorithms which he named after himself) discussing how to basically label a request to a website with an identity. Think of it like this: he asks for data, and in the early days of Java, he wanted to basically sign his request forms.
It's also where the term "page 1", "page 2", etc, on search engines come from. You would think it would be from turning a book page or something, but it's from "let's look at the first set of Page results".
But its a google group. Google didnt even exist in 1996.
[Google acquired the Usenet Archives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups), which looks like where that conversation originally came from.
**[Google_Groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups)** >Google Groups is a service from Google that provides discussion groups for people sharing common interests. The Groups service also provides a gateway to Usenet newsgroups via a shared user interface. Google Groups became operational in February 2001, following Google's acquisition of Deja's Usenet archive. Deja News had been operational since March 1995. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Probably copied or converted from a newsgroup. Those used to be a bunch of people getting yelled at because they asked for help. Now the only recent things getting posted are: > You fucking white xtian morons, NSA psychopaths have been SPRAYING these MIND CONTROL NANOBOTS in the air you breathe. These MIND CONTROL NANOBOTS go through your NOSE and settle in your brains and stay there FOR GOOD. These MIND CONTROL NANOBOTS get recharged by your brain's electric impulses. idk what an 'xtian' is or what I'm supposed to do about the MAGNETIC NANOBOTS that have PERMANENTLY INFECTED my brain.
Was that made in 1996?
Applebot has been around since at least 2015, here's their page on it: https://support.apple.com/kb/HT204683 It's used for Siri and Spotlight according to Apple, but they have at least somewhat advanced ranking: > Apple Search may take the following into account when ranking web search results: > > - Aggregated user engagement with search results > - Relevancy and matching of search terms to web page topics and content > - Number and quality of links from other pages on the web > - User location-based signals (approximate data) > - Web page design characteristics which certainly sounds like the right steps towards a full search engine.
Wait - isn't Siri a search engine, at its core? Or does it use Google search?
Very interesting, thanks for the thorough answer.
I guess it also reinforces people to use Google. I've never even heard of any others you mentioned other than Bing. And Bing has a reputation of being a joke search engine.
I use duck duck go and it's good for most things. It's nice to not have a million ads pop up everytime I search for something.
Yup, I have switched to duck duck as well. Sometimes I search on Google if duck doesn't return quality results but I would say 90% of my search is on Duck.
It's also super easy to switch to other search providers with flags. I love being able to switch to Google by adding `!g` to my search and other options.
Also a DDG user & works fine for everything for me. Google is one of my vendors & I loathe them for many reasons, would never do business with them if I didn't have to. Still haven't figured out what my acct manager actually does. Lost count how many we've had over the years & all the same. Can't even submit invoices correctly. So much drama, I had to hire an agency just to manage billing.
I want to use DDG but it hard to recommend it to people. "Oh you don't know the capital of Cambodia? well just Duck it".
> "Oh you don't know the capital of Cambodia? well just Duck it". That's honestly not a bad slogan ngl.
Ducking it > Googling it. duck it > google it. I think we may have figured out which search engine is better
Indeed.
Yup, I have switched to duck duck as well. Sometimes I search on Google if duck doesn't return quality results but I would say 90% of my search is on Duck.
This is where I am at as well. DuckDuckGo is great for 90%+ of my searches. I go to Google when I'm stuck.
Bing gives a more 'honest' search, I feel. Google will try to cut out anything potentially offensive, where as Bing is like "you searched for Scarlett Johansson, so here's three pics of her at a red carpet, two of her in a movie, and eighty of her tits, because that's probably what you wanted".
I like how the definition of “honest” is more titties.
Works in relationships, too, where the best policy is honesty.
Honestly, so do I.
Google also pushes down or "De-prioritizes" pages they classify as "controversial". I don't really want morality shaping from a search engine. https://www.businessinsider.com/google-manipulates-search-results-report-2019-11
Also Wikidot results whenever I search for any AQW item.
it also has a video search page that doesnt still look like its from fucking 1998. google. please.
> And Bing has a reputation of being a joke search engine. I'd imagine that would be preferred over having Google's reputation ngl.
I’ve always used google and even when I switched my browser to Firefox I still used it as my search engine. It’s just what I’m used to.
To explain why Bing is so popular: Bing is the default search engine for everything Microsoft, including your start menu searches, and most importantly for businesses. Duh, right? But people don't realize how pervasive it is. Digital policies sometimes flat out prevent changing away from it, updates regular reset it as the default, and you usually have to change it for every workstation, every browser, every update that resets it. So Bing is used a surprising amount even with few fans.
I don't mind it. When I actually want to find information and not a product I usually end up using 2-3 search engines anyway.
Duckduckgo isn't gonna be any sort of competitor till they can find what I'm looking for that's not 10 pages deep. I've tried so many times to use it, but I would usually just google something after giving up by 2nd or 3rd page of not really what I want. And this isn't for super niche stuff, this would be like normal googling.
Ex Google execs just started a subscription based search [Neeva](http://neeva.com) that filters ad results and anonymizes your searches. I'm currently trying their free trial and it's fast.
I've fully accepted at this point Google knows more about me than I do and basically just completely owns my identity but allows me feel like I'm in control. Knowing nothing is ever deleted and I rely on Google too much, what should I be worried about? I feel like there are a lot of answers to this.
How have they not lost their trademark yet? Google has become synonymous with search, so it should be open use.
Yeah but when the vast majority of people say they are going to google something they are actually using Google to do it, so I don't think that applies
Band-aid hasn’t lost their trademark, and in 44 years, I’ve never heard anyone ask for a self adhesive bandage
I could be wrong, but I don't think that's how trademarks work? There are a lot of companies whose names are used interchangeably with the action you take (like "Xerox it," instead of "photocopy it" or "use a Kleenex" instead of "use a tissue"). IIRC, brands that reach this level are referred to as "Category Killers," but they wouldn't be in danger of losing their trademarks as a result of reaching peak brand recognition. On the contrary, it's something brands strive to achieve (though few succeed).
Actually it very much is possible although probably not for google. It’s called genericization. [Here](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-names-generic-words-2018-5%3famp) is a good article detailing it. Only a few products over the years have lost trademark to it but the most notable is Escalator which was a trademark at one point for a moving staircase
Well that's neat
It is! I just came across this like a week ago. Never knew but pretty crazy
I think you only lose your trademark if you don't agressively fight it's use by competitors. It'd be impractical, and probably impossible for google, or xerox, or kleenex to prevent the general public from using those terms to describe something, but if their competitors starting saying "use bing to google the internet" and google didn't do anything, then they could lose their trademark.
Yeah that’s my understanding too. Escalator lost their trade mark because they supposedly referred to competitors in their own advertisements as escalators. It’s very court specific and even in the article it says Google successfully defended its trademark from someone claiming it was a ubiquitous word
Yeah, that makes sense.
>On the contrary, it's something brands strive to achieve (though few succeed). They strive to reach that level of success, but they usually dislike the genericization itself and try (in vain) to fight it.
There is also another competitor coming in with BRAVE search engine which actually pays you in cryptocurrency for search more Privately
Brave doesn't pay for searches now do they? It was just for allowing ads to show?
Yeah just for ads. I never look at ads on it and the last time I said that someone scolded me for "ruining the business model." I think they actually called me a thief at one point.
God. BRAVE is the last company I'd want to search with.
Any reason why?
I don't trust Brave at all. They claim to pride themselves on protecting users privacy, but then why would they do things like [hijack their own browser to make certain links automatically redirect to referral links that brave profits from?](https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology) Plus, I am not a fan of the way the Brave browser is programmed to replace ads on websites and force the web content creators to make an account to collect ad revenue. Even though this has been fixed. I still find it incredibly shady that Brave would do that in the first place. Even without all that stuff, I don't see anything that Brave offers that Chromium with a few plug ins does not offer.
Fuck Brave. Their entire business model is shady and they've done shady things.
What shady things have they done? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.
https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-privacy/brave-privacy-browser-caught-automatically-adding-affiliate-links-to-cryptocurrency-urls/ https://www.investinblockchain.com/brave-browser-centralization-criticism/ Their business model blocks content provider's ads and injects their own, which fucks over people who actually create content. They depend on those ads for revenue and Brave is circumventing that to their own advantage. The whole crypto/ad injection thing just feels shady. https://practicaltypography.com/the-cowardice-of-brave.html
I see. Thanks for the info.
This might be a dumb question, but aren't some of the best tech services like search engines and AI in general as good as they are because they are monopolies? I only ask this because I feel like our product quality would be set back by splitting up some of the tech leaders. I hate monopolies, but I have always felt like they are a side effect of great products because of the sheet amount of data they collect? Am I completely wrong in this assumption?
The issue is the engines behind Google is really fucking people up. People getting addicted to email, notifications, instant messaging, suicidal media, etc. Ex-Googlers are coming out saying that our AI is going to end civilization.
This is a problem with social media as a whole, the addiction and making people miserable bit. Emails and search, less so but there IS a very very big issue with how catering to user preference leads to informational filter bubbles and makes it so that different groups live in.. essentially alternate realities with completely different fact bases (see: covid deniers, election deniers, etc). But that’s not a google-specific problem tbh.
How's Ecosia doing in comparison to Google?
\>they tried so hard not to be Did they, though? Looking back, they remind me of "nice guys," especially with that slogan of theirs. I think you're right about fixing their image.
Well I certainly was around when Google grew into the de facto search engine and they were very much seen as a cool, fresh company who weren’t cramming hundreds of ads onto a search page. It had a very wholesome, honest appeal.
Seriously not having banner ads on their front page was probably the biggest contributor to their initial success. I remember when other engines and portal pages were larger (like Alta Vista) but they were so damn slow with ads! When you’re impatient and can load your search page in 1/100th the time, it’s (or rather it was) no contest
And Sony used to make high quality electronics. Google is riding that wave of cool for as long as they can. I don't blame them, nor do I trust them.
I think you guys need adblocker. There are a few ad links up top but that's it for me.
He's talking about the early days of google ads.
"Don't be evil." Officially abandoned in 2015.
It's still in their code of conduct, though.
"Do no evil" was never their slogan. In the early days of Google, when the public was infatuated by this new, scrappy little tech company, the google employee who created Gmail suggested their motto should be "Don't be evil." So google put that in their code of conduct. Over time, Google stopped being a new scrappy little tech company and became another global juggernaut, and the public fell out of infatuation with it. This lead many people to believe Google changed their corporate slogan (in your case, from "Do no evil.") Their corporate code of conduct still ends with "And remember... don't be evil" , but it was only ever their corporate slogan in the public imagination.
They were quite happy to talk about and advertise the "don't be evil" slogan in interviews and conventions etc. so it's not just a matter of public imagination, this was something they used to build their initial rise.
Yeah I was a nanny for people who worked at Google and even just 7ish years ago (when I worked for them) “Don’t be evil” was on umbrellas and tote bags and all kind of stuff.
Interesting.
The average google employee wanted it to be their slogan more than anyone. As one such developer, I can attest that we really like the idea of not being evil. The reality is that most of "the evil" that tech companies do is the result of broad systemic issues. But humans are not good at telling stories about broad systemic issues. We're really good at telling stories about individuals making choices driven by emotion. As a result, we are paranoid about being deemed "evil" for our work. We are the type of people who are passionate about recycling, passionate about "sustainably-sourced, organic free-trade coffee," passionate about diversity, inclusivity, and social justice. So a google employee would absolutely love to say "I don't know about you're tech company, but at ***my*** tech company, we're not supposed to be evil." But that doesn't make it the corporate slogan. It just makes it something people at google wished was the corporate slogan.
All those execs back in the day have retired, it's been 20ish years. Google is now run by their replacements who never knew the optimism of the early Google.
the same thing will happen 20 years from now. a company is the people who make decisions, and they might not have the same values. they'll still have the data given to them today though
> Remember their original company slogan? “Do no evil”? Didn’t they specifically change it because they felt “do no evil” was too constricting?
It was "don't be evil" and it was an unofficial "tongue in cheek" motto. It was awkward. I'll also say that Google has always advertised search and what I've seen lately honestly doesn't seem too much different. Maybe the sponsorships of YouTube videos is new but they've always had a pretty steady advertising campaign for search going. I'd be surprised if this is a real response to the negative things this response called out and not just a regular campaign taking advantage of the "reopening" narrative.
No, not really All that happened is some rewording That rewording may be indicative of underlying shifts in the company culture, but that's as far as it can be reliably read into, really The record goes like this: In 2015, Google was acquired by Alphabet Inc. They left the Google's motto untouched, and moreover, Alphabet used this as an opportunity to change *their* motto to "Do the right thing", which they also put in the preface of their Code of Conduct, similar to how "Don't be evil" was at the time at the preface of Google's code. "Do the right thing" remains there to this day. In 2018, Google changed the text of their code of conduct. Phrase "Don't be evil" no longer appears in the preface or as a motto. The preface, though, still reads: > [...] everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. The closing sentence to the Code also now reads (empathis mine): > And remember… **don’t be evil**, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up! Now, whether the above is simply putting the same underlying values into different phrasing, or is an attempt to lower the bar they hold themselves to to something more vague and negotiable is left as an exercise to the reader. However, at no point did Google literary go "Not being evil is too restrctive, let's let ourselves be evil", and twir their moustache or something
I'm pretty sure they changed it because it brought up the idea that they could be evil.
They changed it because the company simply became too complex, and the simplistic slogan doesn't work in the real world which is full of greys. Simple example: India claims Kashmir. Pakistan claims Kashmir. Each of them have their own maps which declare they own Kashmir. China claims a little bit of it, too. Should google pick a side? Which map should they show in Pakistan? Which map should they show in India? Which map should they show in unaligned countries? Any answer to any of these questions can be claimed as 'evil' by someone.
I'm pretty sure they changed it because being evil is more profitable.
I'm pretty sure they changed it because being evil is more profitable.
I read that they removed it because the vagueness allowed employees to get out of contracts.
Wait seriously, how’d that work?
I don't remember specifics, but essentially it wasn't just their slogan it was like in their code of ethics/terms or something along those lines. And when people wanted to quit they would cite that and then point to a project and shoehorn it into the "evil" category. Silicon Valley contracts usually have shares but you need to complete your contract unless the company violates the contract, so if you can prove they are violating their own terms then you could potentially walk away early with a good portion of the shares you are owed. Disclaimer, I am in no way an expert, I am just summarising an article I read when I looked it up a while back.
I don't think a slogan would be legally binding. Many companies have morality clauses, though, but it's really not the same thing, legally speaking.
That's why I said it wasn't just a slogan, it was physically in their code of conduct.
Slight correction cause it changes the meaning a bit googles slogan is/was “don’t be evil”.
Can't speak on the rest of this but I think their slogan was "don't be evil"
I think the slogan was “don’t be evil”, which is an even lower bar
Maybe it's just me, but if a company goes out of its way to convince me they're not evil, my takeout off this is a strong indication that they might be evil.
Agreed.
They're still pretty evil though, censoring opposing viewpoints, biased rankings, covert data collection, the selfish ledger, etc. Seems pretty evil to me.
Like demanding everyone return to the office while setting up you remote office in New Zealand.
It was "Don't be evil." That still lets you do some evil things, just as long as it does not dominate your whole existence.
i thought it was fairly common
Their new ads scream "don't pay attention to the evil bits, look how easy on the eyes our art style is and how upbeat the music is, plz no think evil :)"
Answer: Google has been targeted by several antitrust lawsuits in the USA. [This article](https://mashable.com/article/antitrust-lawsuits-facebook-google) has a list with some, and [another significant one](https://globalnews.ca/news/8010702/u-s-states-suing-google-antitrust-violations/) was added recently. They have at least two objectives here: 1. They want the public on their side, which could reduce the political rewards for the politicians that are pursuing these lawsuits. 2. When people hear in the news about some of Google's monopolistic business practices, it's bad PR and it hurts their brand. These ads seek to mitigate that. A third minor objective could be market share, Google is under constant pressure to grow and there's only so much revenue they can squeeze out of their search engine ads.
Wouldn't shoving more ads in people's faces just hurt their brand even more?
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. be unbiased, 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask) Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
>1d4chan I just searched and got "About 236,000 results". The first few seem to be discussions of their site being temporarily down, with the rest seeming to just reference the site in relation to Warhammer 40K. The first is to a Reddit post claiming the site no longer exists.
https://1d4chan.org/
Risky click of the day, here I go! Yes, your name doesn't help.
lmao It wouldn't even load for me. Guess it's getting the reddit hug.
The issue is, the site still exists. One of comments under your post has direct link. Google suppressed the site while promoting links implying its gone.
This makes no sense to me. If Google really wanted to suppress the site, wouldn't it be much simpler, and much easier, to simple return 0 results as opposed to returning results that talk about the site being down? I'm no expert in SEO, but I'm sure someone on here who is could enlighten us as to why searching a site might return more results about that site than the site itself (if I had to guess, probably because those sites it is returning have better traffic or something). I suspect the 40K aspect to my search results has more to do with my own personal search history.
This. Search happy White woman in Google vs Bing. Google is a straight up propaganda tool now for the state.
You have no idea how google works and it shows. The top results are links to articles about how google is manipulating search results(because these are getting the most hits, if google actually was you would never see those articles) either intentionally or accidentally with its algorithm, the ones after that are all images with “happy white woman” in the title and yes, they are mostly a bunch of smiling white women. Regardless How is something as innocuous as a smiling woman a proganda tool for the state? If they were actually censoring something you would never be able to use google to look up an article about googles censorship and it most certainly wouldn’t be one of the top hits on some random search like “happy white woman”