[sjtindell]

It’s the ads. The way Brin and Page phrased it in their 1998 paper, they considered ad-oriented search engines to be lower quality. They were going to be more academic. They thought that there was lots of user data to mine in search…for academic purposes. Then innovation #2 at the actual startup was the ad auctions and that was the beginning of the end, all the way back at the beginning.

I’ve recently read a lot about hedge funds, and it’s astounding how many scientists literally say, “I don’t think hedge funds add value to society, I wouldn’t work there.” And then the firm slides this check across the table, and they didn’t even realize a single check could have that many zeroes, and they join the firm and stay forever. That’s what happened with Google and all the rest.

[travisgriggs]

Agreed. The industrialization of ad tech has been a loss for humanity. It’s a runaway mechanization at this point.

What I don’t understand, is why we don’t tax it. If an industry generates lots of wealth, but has a questionable impact on society, the “f(r)ee market” west’s response has usually been to throw a stiff vice tax on it. It doesn’t make the vice go away, but it puts a governor on its excess and redirects some of the spoils for projects which hopefully are net positive.

[biztos]

Doesn't the tax usually come when the consensus about the societal harm carries more weight than the money produced by that harm?

Or at least enough weight to be competitive. Sin taxes have a way of permanently tying the sin (at some reduced level) to the general budget.

I don't think we're there yet. People can get plenty mad at "tech" without connecting the ad-tech dots.

[ajmurmann]

Well, you should try to establish the societal cost of the negative externality and then tax at that level. The idea isn't to destroy the thing but to make it's price reflect its actual cost

Edit: "then cost" => "then tax"

[igouy]

> … why we don’t tax it.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders

[tenpies]

It's the exact same thing with almost every "technology" company out there today.

We're sinking our best and brightest (and also plenty of perfectly useful and adequate) talent into getting people to look here, buy something they don't need, or press button.

It's comically to contrast that with the same people who pretend climate change is an existential crisis. Meanwhile, so many scientists and engineers idealistically interested in that, leave for software-related subjects where they'll make 10X the money making the problem worst.

[mattkrause]

One obvious solution is to pay them more.

If you're not the principal investigator, a NIH grant will pay someone with a PhD + 7 years of experience...$65,292 with pretty weak guarantees on job security (etc).

[jjwiseman]

"Then innovation #2 at the actual startup was the ad auctions..."

I don't think Google quite invented those, GoTo/Overture invented ad auctions and pay-per-click, but missed out on patenting them. Google did improve on the idea, with the second-price auctions.

https://slate.com/business/2013/10/googles-big-break-how-bil...

[ColinHayhurst]

> we craft your reality

As mentioned above. It's also the AI.

Ads are not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is tracking. More on that here and about search: https://www.mojeek.com/support/ads/

[sseagull]

Ads are a fundamental problem. They skew the incentives.

The search engine could, for example, give semi-poor results, making the person search again, increasing ad impressions.

An ad-supported search engine would also prioritize pages with ads that are also conveniently sold by the search engine.

As a user, I want a search engine to give me the best page with the fewest searches. An ad-supported search engine wants me to view more ads and click on them. Those are, if not orthogonal, often in conflict.

[dorgo]

>An ad-supported search engine wants me to view more ads and click on them

Is this really the case? Assuming pay per click model and rational and competent advertisers. More clicks would increase their costs and reduce the generated value per click. The advertisers would limit their maximum cost per click. This would limit the revenue of the ad-supported search engine to the previous level (from before introducing bad search results).

It is possible that more clicks (generated by tricks and bad search results) produce more revenue for the advertisers. This would (slightly) benefit both the advertisers and the search engine.

In the end and in the long run the incentives of the ad supported search engines are alligned with their customers ( advertisers ) if the above assumptions are met.

[hungryforcodes]

Hedge funds are totally over. What are you talking about?

https://www.investopedia.com/managing-wealth/hedge-fund-over...

[hutzlibu]

So you are talking about a different source, than the one you linked?

Because this is the summary of the article.

"Is the hedge fund over? It's difficult to say."

[gregw134]

The idea that ads affect Google's search ranking just isn't true. There are purposeful barriers between ads and search at Google to prevent this, such that the ads team can't even file bugs with search.

[greenyoda]

> the ads team can't even file bugs with search

I don't think it would happen at the low level of engineers filing bugs. It happens at the highest levels of management, where the main concern is corporate profits.

Even if there's no explicit cooperation or algorithmic link between the ads and search divisions, everyone on the search management team knows that search is a huge, expensive operation that makes no money on its own. Advertising is what pays for their salaries, bonuses, operating expenses, etc., and you can bet that they make their executive decisions accordingly.