• dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s an example of why monopolies are harmful. They create distorted economies that don’t serve consumers. Like ecosystems overcome by a monoculture, monopolies are inherently less resilient, less functional and prone to sudden disruption.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      6 months ago

      How exactly would it be any different without Google / SEO. Parsing of website content to determine topics would be a shit show historically, or ridiculously computation heavy now that LLMs could conceivably do a decent job at classifying content. So Google created a way for sites to tag the kind of content they have. Pretty much any search engine would need the same kind of mechanism.

      And content providers are always going to be incentivized to be the top search result, which means targeting search algorithms. That’s just the nature of the beast.

      If there were multiple SEO implementations, that just means more work to target multiple algorithms. And the content owners with more resources, hundreds of developers, would ultimately win because they can target every algorithm.

      I really don’t see how Google as a “monopoly” changes these basic fundamentals.

      • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If there were multiple sources of traffic, the pressure to optimize to one source would be lower, and the disruption caused by algorithm changes would be muted. Which would mean more interesting content less driven by a narrow set of metrics

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Except nothing else actually does meaningfully better than Google, even with Google being the only thing sites care about optimizing for.

          It’s incredibly difficult to do a useful search if sites are hostile and doing everything possible to muddy the results.

          • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            That’s the rationale Google uses. “We’re the best, that’s why users pick us.” They built a moat of investment in search and the browser that other companies can’t compete with. But as a consumer, I am not willing to accept that argument. Ma Bell claimed the same thing. We’re a lot better off economically in a world where Ma Bell was broken up, and Microsoft was forced to stop their anticompetitive activities. Google will be better off as separate companies, worth more than the sum of its parts

            • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              None of this is relevant to the fact that your claim isn’t even the weakest of weak evidence for your position. It is literally completely unconnected. SEO is a problem because searching through adversarial data inputs is not a problem anyone has shown any capacity to solve.

              And Google’s search engine is a singular product. There is nothing to break it off from. Its position is exclusively the product of the fact that there is no other option that’s remotely functional. Search is hard and no one else even has developed even a mildly interesting alternative.