[hattmall]

Bad information is inherently better for Google than correct information. If you get the correct information you only do one search. If you get bad, or misleading information that requires you to perform more searches that it is definitely better for Google.

[delichon]

This is a variation of the parable of the broken window. It is addressed in what may be the most influential essay in modern economics, "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

[RugnirViking]

I've never liked that parable; it seems to me an incredibly poor argument, standing on its own. It literally itself contrasts the definite circulation of money in the destruction case, with a "could" spend on other things. Or he could not. He could have kept it, waiting for another opportunity later, reducing the velocity of money and contributing to inequality.

It doesn't even cover non-renewable resources, or state that the window intact is a form of wealth on its own!

I'm not naive, I'm sure thousands have made these arguments before me. I do think intact windows are good. I'm just surprised that particular framing is the one that became the standard

[PhantomHour]

What's your point here? That Google wouldn't do this because "the broken window fallacy is a fallacy"?

We have them on the record in multiple lawsuits stating that they did exactly this.

[lioeters]

That makes sense, poor search results lead to more engagement. That is devious.. Now that you've pointed it out I can't unsee it.

[maltelandwehr]

In same cases, lower quality of search results leads to more ad clicks and thus more revenue.

[chabes]

Perverse incentive structure