lemonmcgee - Tumblr blog

lemonmcgee · 1 month ago

Note

this isn't about astrology, this about your (hopefully) accidental racism in your approach to horoscopes.

please consider the fact that you're treating the current modern horoscopes like they aren't formed on colonization and cultural appropriation.

there are cultures that are based on the things you are so easy to dismiss, criticize and put down. maybe please think about that? that the trend you are seeing and talking about isn't the beginning and the end of all things concerning horoscopes and astrology.

so maybe just, consider that you're taking in only the weird and sometimes intense or even creepy obsessions and especially focused on white people talking about things they don't understand and cultures they've appropriated. i don't know your religion or race. but maybe don't be so blatantly hateful towards something that some old traditions and religions are based on. even if you do have a religion based on it and hate it (valid, religious trauma is intense), there are others out there you're still hating on. which typically is based on assuming the people who created these religions are stupid. and also susceptible which in turn can infantilize the people who belong to those cultures/religions. (which is what you implied for everyone who uses astrology)

i would be more concerned about the people staying complicit in the ethnic cleansings, starvation, mass cullings, and genocides across the world, than someone who decides to date someone based on a sign. or are you deciding that free will is no longer allowed, because you think someone is stupid?

this is how extremists and pandering and honestly the kind of stuff that in the current state of the world, leads to censorship on so many things. even little stuff like this.

oh, its okay to hate this one group: explains why they're stupid and don't deserve to make decisions and they shouldn't be trusted as adults. (because whether you meant to or not, you implied that)

okay. so are you the person who is going to make better choices? are you the person who is going to vote in someone to make these peoples lives more... worthy in your eyes? disgust is a dangerous path. maybe consider that the world already has enough problems and just let people enjoy their horoscopes. if someone isn't your friend because of the horoscope, well 1) it sounds like the horoscope actually worked since you clearly wouldn't be a good friend to someone who likes horoscopes and 2) i'd rather have someone not be my friend because of the date i'm born than be friends with someone who thinks people are stupid because they're clinging to hope and belief in a world that' feels like it's constantly imploding.

you just come across as bitter and also unapologetically like you'd prefer if these people either didn't exist, or couldn't bother you with their clearly stupid little minds.

oh my fucking god, shut up. this IS an ask about astrology but it's so nuts i had to say something.

it is not racist to say western horoscopes are a pseudoscience with actual studies to prove it's all confirmation bias and the Barnum effect.

pseudoscience can be sincerely harmful, especially when it's used to mistreat others and make character judgments based on the belief that the circumstances of your birth determine your character.

your hypersensitivity, inability to handle people disagreeing with you, and issue with projecting your insecurities is no one's problem but your own.

there is NO reason someone saying "i think astrology is fake" should translate to "I WANT PEOPLE WHO LIKE ASTROLOGY TO DIE" in your mind.

also you genuinely seem to be spiraling a bit here because you are just making yourself upset over things literally no one said while conflating a bunch of shit. your purposeful disregard for my boundary and the frankly absurd length of this ask also suggest this.

i don't hate this group. i did not imply this. you have made something up and upset yourself.

i can't say i find it upsetting when someone is a dick to someone else because of their star sign because genocide exists?

296 notes · View notes

lemonmcgee · 1 month ago

Text

When Google's slop meets webslop, search stops

Support me this summer in the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop! This summer, I'm writing The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI, a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux that explains how to be an effective AI critic.

It's been more than a year since I gave up on Google Search (I switched to Kagi.com and never looked back). I don't miss it. It had gotten terrible. It's gotten worse since, thanks to AI (of course):

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

Google's a very bad company, of course. I mean, the company has lost three federal antitrust trials in the past 18 months. But that's not why I quit Google Search: I stopped searching with Google because Google Search suuuucked.

In the spring of 2024, it was clear that Google had lost the spam wars. Its search results were full of spammy garbage content whose creators' SEO was a million times better than their content. Every kind of Google Search result was bad, and results that contained the names of products were the worst, an endless cesspit of affiliate link-strewn puffery and scam sites.

It's not that the internet lacks for high-quality, reliable reviews. There are plenty of experts out there who subject a wide range of products to careful assessment, laboratory tests, and extensive comparisons. The sites where these reviews appear are instantly recognizable, and it's a great relief to find them.

One such site is Housefresh.com, whose proprietor, Giselle Navarro, runs a team that produces extremely detailed, objective, high-quality reviews of air purifiers. This is an important product category: if you're someone with bad allergies or an immunocompromising condition, finding the right air purifier can exert enormous influence on your health outcomes.

As good as Housefresh are at reviewing air purifiers, they are far less skilled at tricking Google. The world champions of this are spammers, content farms that produce garbage summaries of Amazon reviews and shovel them into massive, hidden sections of once-reputable websites like Forbes.com and Better Homes and Gardens, and thus dominate the Google results for product review searches:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/03/keyword-swarming/#site-reputation-abuse

Google calls this "site reputation abuse" and has repeatedly vowed to put a stop to it, and has repeatedly, totally failed to do so. What's more, Google has laid off more than 10,000 workers, including "core teams," even while spending tens of billions of dollars on stock manipulation through "buyback" schemes:

https://qz.com/google-is-laying-off-hundreds-as-it-moves-core-jobs-abr-1851449528

Of course, the Housefresh team are smart cookies – hence the high caliber of their air purifier reviews – and they could apply that intelligence to figuring out how to use SEO to trick Google's algorithm. Rather than doing so, they took the high road: they applied all that prodigious analytical talent to researching and publishing on Google's systematic failures – and even collusion – with the spammers who are destroying the web.

This month, Housefresh released its latest report on Google's enshittification, this time with an emphasis on the "AI Overviews" that now surmount every search results page. Google has widely touted these as the future of search, a way to bypass the ad-strewn, popup-obscured, AI-sloppified (!) pages that it is seemingly powerless to filter out of its search corpus:

https://housefresh.com/beware-of-the-google-ai-salesman/

Rather than hunting through these SEO-winning garbage pages, you can simply refer to Google's AI Overview, which will summarize the best the internet has to offer, in hyperlegibile black sans-serif type on a white background, with key phrases helpfully highlighted in bold.

Most critiques of AI Overview have focused on how these AI Overviews are a betrayal of the underlying bargain between the web and its monopoly search engine, whereby we all write the web and let Google index it for free, and in exchange, Google will send us traffic in proportion to the quality of our work:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250611-ai-mode-is-google-about-to-change-the-internet-forever

This is true, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Google is a platform, which is to say, a two-sided marketplace that brings together readers and publishers (along with advertisers). The bargain with publishers is that Google will send them traffic in exchange for access to their content. But the deal with readers is that Google will help them answer their questions quickly and accurately.

If Google's marketing pitch for AI Overviews is to be believed, then Google is only shafting publishers in order to double down on its bargain with readers: to give us faster, better access to high-quality information (recall Google's mission statement, "To organize the world's information and make it useful"). If that's true, then Google is the champion of readers in their long battle with publishers, a battle in which they are nearly helpless before publishers' abusive excesses.

This is a very canny move on Google's part. Publishers and advertisers have more concentrated money than readers, but the dominant theory of antitrust since the Reagan administration is something called "consumer welfare," which holds that monopolistic conduct is only to be condemned if it makes consumers worse off. If a company screws its workers or suppliers in order to deliver better products and/or better prices, then "consumer welfare" holds that the government should celebrate and protect the monopolist for improving "efficiency."

But all that is true only if Google AI Overviews are good. And they are very, very bad.

In the Housefresh report, titled "Beware of the Google AI salesman and its cronies," Navarro documents how Google's AI Overview is wildly bad at surfacing high-quality information. Indeed, Google's Gemini chatbot seems to prefer the lowest-quality sources of information on the web, and to actively suppress negative information about products, even when that negative information comes from its favorite information source.

Indeed, Navarro identifies a kind of madlibs template that Gemini uses to assemble an AI overview in response to the query "Is the [name of air purifier] worth it?"

The [model] air purifier is [a worthwhile investment/generally considered a good value for its price/a worthwhile purchase]. It's [praised/well-regarded] for its ability to [clean the air/remove particles/clean large rooms]. Whether the [product] is worth it depends on individual needs and priorities.

This is the shape of the response that Google's AI Overview shits out when you ask about any air purifier, including a model that Wirecutter called "the worst air purifier ever tested":

https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/worst-air-purifier-we-ever-tested/

What's more, AI Overview will produce a response like this one even when you ask it about air purifiers that don't exist, like the "Levoit Core 5510," the "Winnix Airmega" and the "Coy Mega 700."

It gets worse, though. Even when you ask Google "What are the cons of [model of air purifier]?" AI Overview simply ignores them. If you persist, AI Overview will give you a result couched in sleazy sales patter, like "While it excels at removing viruses and bacteria, it is not as effective with dust, pet hair, pollen or other common allergens." Sometimes, AI Overview "hallucinates" imaginary cons that don't appear on the pages it cites, like warnings about the dangers of UV lights in purifiers that don't actually have UV lights.

Google argues that AI Overview won't displace traffic to the sites it summarizes. The company points to the fact that the statements in an AI Overview are each linked to the web-page they come from. This is a dubious proposition, predicated on the idea that people looking up a quick answer on a search engine will go on to follow all the footnotes and compare them to the results (this is something that peer reviewers for major scientific journals often fail at, after all).

But the existence of these citations allowed Navarro to compile statistics about the sources that Google relies on most heavily for information about product quality:

43.1% of these statements come from product manufacturers' marketing materials;

19.5% of these statements are sourced from pages that contain no information about the product.

Much of the remainder comes from the same "site reputation abuse" that Google said it would stop prioritizing two years ago. An alarming amount of this material is also AI generated: this is the "coprophagic AI" problem in which an AI ingests another AI's output, producing ever-more nonsensical results:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/14/inhuman-centipede/#enshittibottification

The balance is primarily drawn from Reddit, who announced a major partnership with Google as part of the company's IPO:

https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/expanded-reddit-partnership/

Adding "reddit" to a Google query is a well-known and still-useful way to get higher quality results out of Google. Redditors is full of real people giving their real opinions about products and services. No wonder that Reddit appears in 97.5% of product review queries:

https://detailed.com/forum-serps/

Obviously, the same SEO scumbags who have been running circles around Google for years are perfecctly capable of colonizing and compromising Reddit, which has been rocked by a series of payola scandals in which the volunteer moderators of huge, reputable subreddit were caught taking bribes to allow SEO scumbags to spam their forums and steal their valor:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250607050622/https://www.reddit.com/r/TheseFuckingAccounts/comments/1kzzsuv/update_reddit_admins_have_escalated_the_paradise/

When it comes to product reviews, Google's AI Overviews consist of irrelevancies, PR nonsense, and affiliate spammer hype – all at the expense of genuine, high-quality information, which is still out there, on the web, waiting for you to find it.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai is unapologetic about the way that AI Overviews blurs the line between commercial pitches and neutral information, telling Bloomberg, "commercial information is information, too":

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-03-24/google-s-ai-search-overhaul-racing-chatgpt-for-the-web-s-future

Which raises the question: why is Pichai so eager to enshittify his own service? After all, AI isn't a revenue center for Google – it's a cost center. Every day, Google's AI division takes a blowtorch to the company's balance sheet, incinerating mountains of money while bringing in nothing (less than nothing, if you count all the users who are finding ways to de-Google their lives to escape the endless AI slop):

https://pluralistic.net/2025/06/30/accounting-gaffs/#artificial-income

It's true that AI loses money for Google, but AI earns something far more important (at least from Pichai's perspective): a story about how Google can continue to grow.

Google's current price-to-earnings (PE) ratio is 20:1. That means that for every dollar Google brings in, investors are willing to spend $20 on Google's stock. This is a very high PE ratio, characteristic of "growth stocks" (companies that are growing every year). A high PE ratio tells you that investors anticipate that the company will get (much) bigger in the foreseeable future, and they are "pricing in" that future growth when they trade the company's shares.

Companies with high PE ratios can use their stock in place of money – for example, they can acquire other companies with stock, or with a mix of cash and stock. This lets high PE companies outbid mature companies – companies whose growth phase has ended – because stock is endogeous (it is produced within the company, by typing zeroes into a spreadsheet) and therefore abundant, while dollars are exogenous (produced by the central bank – again, by typing zeroes into a spreadsheet! – and then traded to the company by its customers) and thus scarce.

Google's status as a growth stock has allowed it to buy its way to dominance. After all, Google has repeatedly, continuously failed to create new products in-house, relying on acquisitions of other people's companies for its mobile technology, ad-tech, server management, maps, document collaboration…virtually every successful product the company has (except Search).

For so long as investors believe Google is growing, it can buy other companies with its abundant stock rather than its scarce dollars. It can also use that stock to hire key personnel, which especially important for AI teams, where compensation has blasted through the stratosphere:

https://www.reuters.com/business/zuckerbergs-meta-superintelligence-labs-poaches-top-ai-talent-silicon-valley-2025-07-08/

But that just brings us back to the original question: why build an AI division at all?

Because Google needs to keep up the story that it is growing. Once Google stops growing, it becames a "mature" company and its PE ratio will fall from 20:1 to something more like 4:1, meaning an 80% collapse in the company's share price. This would be very bad news for Googlers (whose personal wealth is disproportionately tied up in Google stock) and for Google itself (because many of its key personnel will depart when the shares they've banked for retirement collapse, and new hires will expect to be paid in scarce dollars, not abundant stock). For a company like Google, "maturity" is unlikely to be a steady state – rather, it's likely to be a prelude to collapse.

Which is why Google is so desperately sweaty to maintain the narrative about its growth. That's a difficult narrative to maintain, though. Google has 90% Search market-share, and nothing short of raising a billion humans to maturity and training them to be Google users (AKA "Google Classroom") will produce any growth in its Search market-share. Google is so desperate to juice its search revenue that it actually made search worse on purpose so that you would have to run multiple searches (and see multiple rounds of ads) before you got the information you were seeking:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan

Investors have metabolized the story that AI will be a gigantic growth area, and so all the tech giants are in a battle to prove to investors that they will dominate AI as they dominated their own niches. You aren't the target for AI, investors are: if they can be convinced that Google's 90% Search market share will soon be joined by a 90% AI market share, they will continue to treat this decidedly tired and run-down company like a prize racehorse at the starting-gate.

This is why you are so often tricked into using AI, by accidentally grazing a part of your screen with a fingertip, summoning up a pestersome chatbot that requires six taps and ten seconds to banish: companies like Google have made their product teams' bonuses contingent on getting normies to "use" AI and "use" is defined as "interact with AI for at least ten seconds." Goodhart's Law ("any metric becomes a target") has turned every product you use into a trap for the unwary:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/02/kpis-off/#principal-agentic-ai-problem

There's a cringe army of AI bros who are seemingly convinced that AI is going to become superintelligent and save us from ourselves – they think that AI companies are creating god. But the hundreds of billions being pumped into AI are not driven by this bizarre ideology. Rather, they are the product of material conditions, a system that sends high-flying companies into a nosedive the instant they stop climbing. AI's merits and demerits are irrelevant to this: they pump AI because they must pump. It's why they pumped metaverse and cryptocurrency and every other absurd fad.

None of that changes the fact that Google Search has been terminally enshittified and it is misleading billions of people in service to this perverse narrative adventure. Google Search isn't fit for purpose, and it's hard to see how it ever will be again.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/07/14/pole-star/#gnus-not-utilitarian

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

Radek Kołakowski (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warszawski_smog_(22798350941).jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

493 notes · View notes