I recently took someone to go and watch a hockey game. Been a little while but I personally played as a goalie myself.
The person kept making the comment that she couldn't see/find the puck and it made it frustrating to watch.
As a goalie, not being able to see the puck is pretty normal (especially with big bodies trying to screen you).
What I told her was that what matters a lot more than where the puck is, is where it's going to be in about two seconds. But the next best thing is to know where the puck is now.
If you can't see the puck then look at the players and as a last resort, look at the ref. 99% of the time they will be looking at the puck. Look where they're looking and soon enough it will appear.
I think this applies very much to this whole Google question.
The puck is gone (or on the way to the other side of the rink) and everyone is confused where it is or where it's going.
Look where everyone is looking and you'll find your answer there. It may not be in the same form as Google adwords, but the game is the same. Leveraging attention.
The tactics were different during the phonebook days (it was having your business start with the letter "A") as opposed to Google and will be different for the next thing as well.
From what I can tell, everyone seems to be looking at chatbots and vertical, shortform video. Not sure how that plays out in terms of advertising, but in terms of the answer to this article's question, that seems like a good place to start.
In my anecdotal experience, it's moved to private, trust-based channels: iMessage, WhatsApp, email, face-to-face interactions. Our 30-year bender of putting our lives online and blurring the public and the private has finally ended: people don't want to be online, don't trust social media, don't really trust any media, and are living simple local lives with a small circle of friends that they get together with regularly in person.
But then, my anecdotal experience may not be representative of most of the world. Most of my friends have money, houses, kids, friends - all of which are, by the numbers, rarities these days.
It's an interesting thought experiment to explore what it means if that actually is the new normal, and people are not consuming media or much of anything, or even if the people who are still addicted to social media are now tapped out and don't have any more disposable income left to spend. Probably economic depression. If everybody bought only what they needed and ignored all the advertisements, our present level of economic activity would plunge.
I had a very interesting discussion with a friend today, where I was talking to her about the /r/golang thread about Rob Pike's comments to OpenAI and how the thread was full of bots talking with other bots. No idea why the density of bots was so high in that thread, it was kind of absurd to see.
Then she said: "I know nobody that comments on online forums. Nobody would ever comment to strangers on the internet. It's too dangerous."
Took me a while to grasp what she meant with that, but I think she's right. Trust has eroded so much over the last two decades that most forums are either full of bots or full of annoyed and toxic people. It's very rare to find welcoming communities to newbies, and most of the ones I have discovered were offline connections.
She also mentioned that all of her friends use private profiles only, because having public profiles is too dangerous because of stalkers.
To me this sounded a bit absurd at first, but maybe that's a different perception on "how to use" the internet from a different younger generation that grew up post-socialmedia? My first contact with the internet was MIT opencourseware, her first contact was receiving dick pics at the age of 10 from assholes on the other side of the planet.
I miss the old phpbb forum days when the most toxic comment was someone being snarky and derailing the discussion into "did you use the search function?"
No idea how to fix the internet, maybe it's time to move to gopher or another protocol :-/
I think some of this is caused by the non-obvious mechanisms of how interactions on these platforms work.
When you replied to a thread on a phpbb forum (or when you reply to this HN thread), your reply „lived” in that thread, on that forum, and that was that. The algorithm wouldn’t show that reply to your dad.
I remember liking a comment on Facebook years ago, and being horrified when some of my friends and family got a „John liked this comment, join the discussion!” notification served straight onto their timelines, completely out of context. I felt spied on. I thought I was interacting with a funny stranger, but it turned out that that tiny interaction would be recorded and rebroadcast to whomever, without my knowledge.
Similarly, commenting on a youtube video was a much different experience when your youtube account wasn’t linked to all your personal information.
If you comment on a social media post, what’s going to happen? How sure are you that that comment, however innocuous it may seem now, won’t be dredged up 8 years by a prospective employer? Even if not, your like or comment it’s still a valuable data point that you’re giving to Zuckerberg or similar. Every smallest interaction enriches some of the worst people in the industry, if not in the world.
The way I speak, the tone I use, the mannerisms I employ, they all change depending on the room I’m in and on the people I’m speaking to - but on modern social media, you can never be sure who your audience is. It’s safer to stay quiet and passive.
This is very well said! Probably also why social media has become so "fake" - back in the early days of Facebook, friends would talk to each other like friends. But after my religious aunt started seeing the comments I was leaving on a friend's pics, let's just say that stopped pretty quick.
Now the only thing I would ever consider posting on Facebook is "What a beautiful day! Went for a great hike with my family and enjoyed nature."
Very true! As I remember, Google+ was a step towards figuring out this issue - instead of a general Facebook-style „Friends” that includes all sorts of different people you know (or once knew), the idea was that you’d have multiple „circles” of acquaintances that you could post to separately: family, college friends, coworkers, etc.
Of course that didn’t really pan out, and the social network itself collapsed under its own weight within a couple years without ever reaching widespread adoption. It’s interesting though, because I think it really was ahead of its time - these days I just have multiple different groupchats that I text, and that’s basically the same thing.
Yeah I liked Google+, at the time Google had a much better reputation though, if they hadn't shut it down then they did Google+ would probably be fully enshittified by now!
Most of her friends are probably women. Try making an account with an obvious female name and you will see a marked difference on most social platforms I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.
funny story: I got the wife of a friend to install tinder, a couple of years back when I was dating. I was having a hard time getting matches, so I figured I'd see how the other side lives. She created an empty profile, with a blurry hippopotamus as a profile picture, and a single letter as name. Just "H". For hippopotamus. No bio. Within five minutes she was matching with every other guy she swiped right on. Which wasn't all of them, mind you. Within another five minutes, half of the guys she had matched with had messaged her. Regular looking guys. A lot of them had same opening line. "Did you know hippos are the most dangerous animal in the world?"
After that, I got why I wasn't getting any replies >.<
You can try creating a profile as a woman. I did, five years ago, on a site that advertised itself as being dedicated to "affairs" between married people.
All I said was I was 20, was red haired, and open minded. Nothing more, and no photo.
Indeed, within a couple of minutes there were guys asking me if I liked to be whipped while handcuffed to a radiator, and offered to send me dick picks if I sent naked photos first. One of them added later "maybe I'm too direct for you, is that why you're silent?"
I didn't respond to any message, but the offers kept coming. It's insane.
Still a very valid experiment. I know the source of both sex' strife though: competition. I don't think we'll ever solve that, not while we're still monkeys.
Vincent stated that, after the experiment, she gained more sympathy for the male condition: "Men are suffering. They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better. They need our sympathy, they need our love, and they need each other more than anything else. They need to be together."
I respect that, compared to the arguments that sex A is having a better time than B, or that one needs more support and focus than the other. We’re all in the same, but different, shit.
I agree with that, although a giant amount of support and attention is one way, the sexes are going through different stuff into terms of the meta-problem of "how our problems are viewed".
She died by assisted suicide, for private reasons. No need to exaggerate to make a point. There’s Twitter if you want to engage in that type of culture war.
It means that if you zoom out, things look more similar. Similar patterns, similar problems and solutions, but different components.
All the various shades of red are all red. All news is engagement bate (if it bleeds, it leads), but every piece of news is different. You are in a forest in region X and I am in a desert in region Y, both could be dealing with the same problem of keeping warm at night. It's all different, and yet still the same.
I didn’t ask for an interpretation of the post, I asked for other times where anyone would use “same” and “different” interchangeably as words (in a sentence, presumably)
It kind of seems like the sentence I quoted was gibberish that’s short enough to seem vaguely profound. Unless somebody could give other examples of when those words are interchangeable (then obviously dogs is eggs), but as it stands it’s a duck pregnancy is optional type situation
You may be the victim right now, and I may be the perpetrator, but over time you'll sometimes be the perpetrator (what, do you think you're perfect?) and I'll sometimes be the victim (you don't think I suffer?), and over time it all averages out.
But just because you're the victim this time, you're getting all the sympathy. Is that fair?
> They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better.
How can I agree with this? Material conditions matter: whatever problem you have, being poorer will make it worse. Women have been earning less than men for decades, and most highly paid execs are men, not women.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-end...
It's really telling how most replies to your message are about "sexual market" or online dating. That's all some men can think of when talking about women online.
I understand their struggles because I lived through them. However, after I got better at OLD, I understand how it gets tiring hearing about it after a while, specially from people who are clearly on a bad path. For example, treating like a market (which I don't consider a good approach) but not accepting their current value is not enough for creating any demand. And nowadays, with the gym culture being mainstream, it's getting even harder if you don't even try to be more "valuable".
If I summarized men online as watching pornography and following hot women on social media, people would (correctly) point out that it does not encapsulate what men do online as a whole. A lot of people do these things, but that is only part of their online experience. However, these replies are talking about OLD apps and sexual market as if women only do that online, which relates to the point of the original comment.
They didn't suggest men couldn't understand, they actually offered a way to help foster understanding by creating the false profile. The ones who won't understand are those who make no effort to understand, and that's quite reasonable to say.
A woman's online safety relative to other spaces also misses the point about their online spaces being less safe than those of men; the suggestion wasn't that online spaces are the absolute most dangerous spaces for them.
That said I would raise the point of how easy it is to dehumanise people online and how easy it is to quickly gather various data like work addresses etc.
Most men don't understand what women have to go through in everyday interactions and most women don't understand the same for men. And I think your analytical reaction to an emotional problem proves my point I feel.
I have read the full conversation, and you're still failing to recognize how the original post has a valid point. You have admitted yourself that you create online accounts without gender identification, so your own experience is different from women that do create gendered accounts.
It was never the point that it's possible to go online without recieving such ubiquitous abuse, which is what you suggest women should do. You have still not acknowledged that such high level of abuse can be dangerous, not merely for the mental health problems but for the real possibility of being stalked in the real world. That way, you're just reinforcing the point you tried to deny, which is that it's hard for men to understand such abuse without having experienced it first hand.
> I have read the full conversation, and you're still failing to recognize how the original post has a valid point. You have admitted yourself that you create online accounts without gender identification, so your own experience is different from women that do create gendered accounts.
The assertion was that women find posting on the internet too dangerous. Not that they find it too dangerous when using gendered names. See, you haven't even followed the first thing!
Nevermind the fact that the entire idiotic assertion is obviously invalidated by all the countless women who do post on the internet, and with gendered names even. For the ones who don't post or don't use gendered names it's not "danger" that drives the choice. Annoyance, disgust, unsolicited attention, whatever it is. No need to make things up, or make stupid claims like "men can't understand", it doesn't help anybody.
Every single assertion made (without evidence) is trivially false.
And finally, disagreeing and debating something is not "reinforcing" the assertions that it's too dangerous for women to post on the internet, that's just stupid. And by continuing to argue with me you're just reinforcing that you're an angry racist misogynist.
Over the whole population, I bet the difference between sexes is very small when it comes to what % posts online comment. You're saying "most social platforms" - what's the biggest one in the world? Probably still Facebook. Yet I'm fairly sure it has a higher female than male DAU, at least in the West.
r/kpop has 3 million subscribers. Take a look at the most followed accounts on Instagram. How many of them have female-dominated comment sections?
> I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.
You're saying this as a guy who doesn't understand the world the general population lives in, outside your highly-educated male-dominated tech bubble. You're considering only the spaces you have been visiting for most of your life.
Parent was saying that most men don't understand the amount of casual sexual harassment women are subjected to in unmoderated online spaces -- much more so than men receive.
Which makes me sad.
Apparently Y chromosome + enculturation = prerogative to send unsolicited photos of ones genitalia to random internet strangers.
No, rather both are on opposite sides of an equation, and being buried in competition from folks trying to solve their part of it in isolation.
Women == get too much attention, often of the wrong type. How to get the right kind of attention?
Men == not getting any attention, of any type. How to get some attention?
So women either get ‘the wrong kind’ of attention, but plenty of it - or somehow figure out the magic of getting the right kind of attention? Not easy.
And men work hard to get any attention, often overdoing it on the only way they can figure out - which usually has poor (but not zero!) results. Folks good at playing the game get excellent results, however.
Meanwhile, everyone is getting played by the folks in the middle.
Notably, there are plenty of women taking advantage of the attention they get on Tinder. They just have no problem solving for what it works for, which is getting laid with near zero effort.
The way this previously got figured out was a ‘managed market’ - arranged marriages. Religious/social rules, etc.
Sexual harassment (having been a target of it), is pretty much the definition of ‘unwanted attention’. Targets typically just want to be left alone.
It’s also a crime in some places, not (!!!) in others, or called different things in other places depending on the details.
For example, is sending an unsolicited dick pic on a dating app sexual harassment? Is getting felt up at work, with the implication ‘or else’? Is being stalked by members of the opposite gender? Or having career advancements blocked by a lack of ‘playing the game’?
I can give you concrete examples from a number of cultures that each culture will write off as ‘he/she/they were asking for it’, or ‘she/they/he deserved it’, or ‘it’s just boys/girls being girls/boys.’.
I’ve seen it up close and personal, and have lived it.
The underlying ‘attention economy’ dynamic is still the same.
Edit: meant to add - plenty of 80/20 also applies here of course (though more extreme). Top 1-2% men (esp. from earning or traditional looks perspective) deal with the same issues that top 50%-80% of women deal with, bottom 20% of women (from traditional looks perspective) deal with issues that 80-90% of men deal with, etc.
Sure, there are misogynistic cultures out there, but that doesn't justify it from a categorical imperative perspective.
If it's okay, then it's okay for all sexes. And I'm hard-pressed to name a world culture that's equally accepting and promoting of men-sexually-harassing-women and women-sexually-harassing-men.
Can you?
It feels like you're trying to make this an argument about statistics, when it's an argument about ethics and morality.
I never said it’s okay at all. Where are you getting that from?
Reality doesn’t particularly care about one persons idea of right or wrong. And if you look at the planet, good luck coming up with a consistent definition either.
I’m also 100% sure some random persons idea on the internet or what is moral or right has zero to do with the dynamics of dating or social interactions either.
What sort of discussion do you want this to be about?
I know. Parent, along with the reply, also said that women as a result are much less active online, but that's a belief caused by a lack of grass touching.
> "I know nobody that comments on online forums. Nobody would ever comment to strangers on the internet. It's too dangerous."
> Most of her friends are probably women
-> "Women don't comment on the internet (especially compared to men) because it's a hostile place".
Thats just what the internet of the mid to late 90s was like. People rarely used their real name, there were hundreds of forums, some private. You could have different nicks on them.
Nobody knew you were a dog on the internet[1] until the rise of Facebook and linking your real identity with an online identity.
The idea that everyone has only one identity, one whole, is harmful.
People change over time. People change even a little based on who's around them. Even memories change as people see things in new lights.
The Internet of the late 90s and early 2000s was spectacular in that everyone could be as authentic and deep as they wanted to be, and as shallow and invisible as they wanted to be depending on context.
Firefox? Want to know how to really sell yourself. Be 'For the User', like TRON (but avoid that for copyright reasons and because normal people don't understand). The user should be able to TRUST that Firefox isn't selling them out, spying on them, or doing anything strange. That when Firefox creates identity sandboxes they're firewalled from each other to the maximum extent; including resisting device fingerprinting (just look generic and boring).
You could argue (it certainly has been argued) that the ability for technology to dissolve the usually more coherent identities that we take on daily by granting unlimited role play, trolling, and exploration is simply too much for a lot of people, and makes it hard to maintain a coherent sense of self. This is especially true of people who are “internet addicts” - not that the designation means a whole lot as I’m here at the gym talking to you on the phone.
Don’t get me wrong, I mostly agree with your comment. I think even more dastardly is the tendency for the internet to market new personalities to you, based on what’s profitable
There's also the inconvenient truth that a very specific part of the world was online in the 1990s.
Primarily more educated, more liberal, more wealthy.
Turns out, when you hook the rest of the planet online, you get mass persuasion campaigns, fake genocide "reporting", and enough of an increase in ambient noise that coherent anonymous discourse becomes impossible.
I mean, look at the comments on Fox News or political YouTube videos. That's the real average level of discussion.
The 1990s internet was definitely not more liberal! 4chan style forums were probably the rule. I can’t believe someone would say that, clearly you didn’t use the same internet that I did.
He didn't say the internet was more liberal, he said the people on it were.
Before you start forming your reply, think about the actual culture back then. If you take slashdot as somewhat representative of the 90s internet culture, it was basically anti-corporate, meritocratic, non-judgmental, irreligious, educated, non-discriminatory, and once 2000 came around tended to be highly critical of the Bush agenda.
4chan at that time and places like it represented more of an edgelord culture, where showing vulnerability or sensitivity was shunned, everything revered by the larger populace was ruthlessly mocked, and distrust of society and government in general was taken as natural. Calling them conservative would have been non-sensical.
Exactly. If I had to characterize the general internet (read: what would and wouldn't raise an eyebrow in an average forum) in terms of political alignment, it'd probably be:
That SA / 4chan (both of which were really post-90s) existed were in no way proof of an anti-liberal bent. Their very edgelordness was an implicit reveling in absolute freedom of expression (even if their later liberal-pro-censoring and alt-right splinter movements subsequently forgot that).
Completely agree. Look at some videos on YouTube. 20,000 comments on brand new videos sometimes. A lot of good people are commenting on the internet. The problem is that the trust in public institutions is at an all time low, and that is leading to much more doom and gloom and those of us who are from the 2000s can feel the difference in the comment sections.
> No idea how to fix the internet, maybe it's time to move to gopher or another protocol :-/
Fido and Usenet are still around. Kind-of. IMO google virtually killed that, too, when they started peddling google groups and did the classic embrace-extend-extinguish on the Usenet.
Perhaps time for a revival - text mode only, please, to keep out those that I don't want on there (the platform appearing too unattractive might be the way forward to avoid the TikTokers).
To be fair, back in those "good old phpbb days", people trolled just as hard as anyone does now, and maybe worse, since the consequences of it were not as visible, and getting in trouble for things you said online was virtually nonexistent. Everyone used a fake name, and while it might be possible to dox someone, it wasn't an operational concern for anyone who just wanted to be a jerk...
Trolling had (has) a different character in smaller, more private forums: it tends towards more effort. A low-effort troll just gets banned and loses their platform, so the troll needs to at least ride the line of legitimacy. Drawing the line back to Usenet, the sheer effort that went into some trolling garnered respect if not necessarily acceptance.
Drive-by interactions reward volume since the 'game' isn't repeated. Curated social media feeds like Twitter are even worse; the troll has their own audience predisposed towards acceptance and the victim is just set-dressing.
I analogize this to in-person interactions: ostracization is mutually costly. A small group loses a member who was at least making a 'warm body' contribution, but the ostracized person loses a whole set of social benefits.
So true. I was one of those trolls, so I know it well; playing the role of a heel. People would know and remember you by avatar and custom forum titles and a huge garish signature... it cemented you as a person, gave you a face in a way that Hacker News or Reddit threads do not.
The trolling that happened on IRC would put modern day trolling to shame. Imagine posting a link to an exe claiming to be one thing but would actually contain Back Orifice (a Trojan that gave you remote access to the victim's pc). People would blindly download exes and run them on completely unprotected Windows 98.
To be fair I do miss the "old Internet". Less corporate, money grabbing, more freedom.
It's not the internet that changed, it's the people.
I'm an old timer, and I've been there since the beginning. I remember the beginning of the eternal summer, and the gradual decline that came after.
One of my first jobs was actually 3rd shift help desk for a regional dial-up ISP. The people that called were mostly drunk southerner's who, at the time, seemed hopelessly non-technical.
Looking back I now see that any one of them knew much, much more about how the internet actually worked than a the average modern user, and were probably more worldly in general than todays average user.... and there are billions more of them now.
We thought that global access to information would democratize everything and expose people to a higher level of rhetoric and thinking. We just KNEW that the best ideas would rise to the top of discourse naturally and the world would magically become a better place. We were so very wrong. It's turns out that more than cream floats.
Well, of course it's the people. I started online in '94 and it was exclusively the territory of nerds for a long while, even as everyday folks started to use the web and email for basic things. Truly, we should appreciate having places like Hacker News for still giving us a place to post like we always used to...
Plenty of forums still do exist, but I wonder about their future as we age out. Car forums in particular were absolute godsends for amateur mechanics - not just to look up info but to ask a self-selected group of interested folks who were happy to help for free out of a sense of community for fellow fans of their brand.
I think the cDc made some effort to brand Back Orifice 2000 as a remote administration tool and in reality it really was pretty good for that; wonder what happened to those guys
> how the thread was full of bots talking with other bots
I am sure there are some dead giveaways, but how can you be sure about that?
What I have experienced is both going into forums/discussions someone said was bots talking to bots, with no real clear indication by any of the many markers I am aware of that it was in fact bots; and also comments calling responses bots seemingly as a manipulative dismissal in response to something that was not the consensus or commonly approved position.
I say that because my impression is that what is happening is a full on breakdown of civic discussion and conversation as a whole. The internet destroyed IRL public forums (pubs/bars, clubs, etc) and the draconian COVID policies took the death knell to many more, and now bots and the seemingly bigger issue of immediate distrust of everything, seems to also be destroying online conversations of all sorts.
Yes, you’ll be able to have small group meetings and maybe even voice/video only conversations, but that brings a whole host of other systems changes with it, especially as mass surveillance long surpassed anything the worst tyrants of history could have ever even dreamed of implementing. It all seems a shift into unhealthy territory as a civilization in general, including since essentially all western governments cannot be trusted by their own people anymore.
I had a comment auto-removed from a subreddit and when I mailed its mods to inquire what might have triggered it, I was informed that commenting on a post from a month ago (yes really) is now considered a red flag for spam/bot activity.
I miss phpBB/IPB/etc. forums having a pair of resident "trolls" who were by far the most prolific posters on the entire forum, because they would gravitate to each other and "debate" at length, ostensibly but questionably as bitter rivals
> Trust has eroded so much over the last two decades that most forums are either full of bots or full of annoyed and toxic people. It's very rare to find welcoming communities to newbies, and most of the ones I have discovered were offline connections.
Tumblr is still doing pretty well on that front. I'm there for a fandom, and it's a super positive atmosphere where everyone just wants to make and talk about cool art.
I don’t see any obvious evidence of bot activity on that thread (and all of my spot checks strongly leaned human). Were some comments removed or something?
I noticed a few people on HN have started complaining that anyone arguing with them is a bot. I think it's a coping mechanism at finding people who challenge them, but maybe they've been on too many bot-infested forums lately, or are just young (that might overlap with both users of bot-infested forums and those who haven't had their ideas challenged much).
For what its worth. I recently joined "Carpokes" which is a free members only Porsche forum being run by a man hell bent on keeping it a friendly, bot-free, community. Its been great engaging in a forum again where I look at it maybe once a week.
> she said: "I know nobody that comments on online forums.
Yet she knows you and you and me are strangers talking to each other on this forum. I think we don't know even close friends what online communities people hang out - the reason she didn't know about you being on HN.
Niche forums still exist with real humans like for example, LTT or openZFS forums. But main stream ones like XDA, reddit or YouTube etc are totally ruined by AI.
I think the idea that nobody would talk to strangers online is a bit too general. We are all mostly doing it here. I do it on reddit all the time in the same recurring subreddits that I've grown to trust. IRC was also pretty hostile back in the 90s. But again it depended on the communities. Just think you can't generalize the internet this way.
True I would also add that this an exception to most social media platforms. I feel as there is a roundtable Everytime somone posts a something. I'm some how invited and listening, whether I comment or say something is entirely up to what I have to share. Argument or debate isnt so aggressiveas it's factual based for the most part.
BTW, I don't explicitly disagree with what you're saying, but it would be good to look at actual data instead of anecdata to know for sure, and the people who have the data are not telling ...
Reputation management is what it will take to bring trust back to all forms of media. It means creating a trusted identity that can be verified, and that the identity is known to be a real human with a reputation to lose if exposed as being a bot or otherwise untrustworthy.
Unfortunately, for common people whose aim is not celebrity, this means handing over your privacy in order to have a voice.
We can do this in our IRL circles of trust, people know you because they have met or interacted with you personally.
Online, this means someone like Zuck creating a digital identity for us after we entrust them with our privacy, or some kind of open source complicated technology identifier like a cryptographically verified signature that is techno bro-free that will only be adopted or understood by tech literate.
It's a dark day for genuine human interaction and trust.
> Reputation management is what it will take to bring trust back to all forms of media.
Does that really work, though? I think it doesn't -- think all the anti-vaccine type influencers -- their identities are known and they're ok with it.
> It means creating a trusted identity that can be verified, and that the identity is known to be a real human with a reputation to lose if exposed as being a bot or otherwise untrustworthy.
Surely this won't be used for nefarious reasons or to silence individuals like it's done in the UK or in the cancel culture actions. /s
Absolutely this. I recently got a nice photo taken with my kids and for the first time I... didn't post it on Facebook. I sent it to my family group chat. Yesterday I posted on Facebook for the first time in months and it was about the power being out for an hour in the ice storm. I haven't posted travel photos to FB in years.
I'm mostly still on FB at all for the acquaintance-level connections to things like neighbourhood, church, and hobby communities. All the people I actually care about are in private group chats.
I was reflecting recently that Google Plus actually had the right idea back in 2011 with "circles", but at the time we all said it was too hard figuring out which circles we wanted to share a particular message or thought with. Hmm, maybe they were ahead of the game all along?
Everyone who was on Livejournal before G+ “invented” “Circles” had absolutely no problem with locking posts to “friends” (people they followed) or various “friends groups” that were subsets of their friends. It was fucking hilarious to see everyone say it was too hard on G+. Just two dropdowns right there on the new post page next to the main text field. Super simple. Creating and editing the groups was a pretty simple task with its own page.
Now that I look back at that I wonder what kind of theories suggest that abilities like that will result in reduced ad impressions, since I feel like every decision made by social sites makes much more sense when viewed through that lens.
Yeah LiveJournal (my username there is lightfixer) really came close to replicating how we actually social. Deciding who is able to see what I posted on an individual level was great. Could create groups etc.
I still mourn G+. It was clearly put together by somebody who thought first and foremost about privacy. It made deciding who to share what with the central, most visible part of how it worked. And that's probably part of why it failed. Was it hard to choose? Nope. But I guarantee you that if Facebook added a little "hey, are you sure you want to share this post publicly with the whole world under your real name? Yes/No" popup, organic content would drop 50% overnight, and not because of the difficulty of clicking "Yes." G+ died in part because it looked like a ghost town to a visitor, and it looked like a ghost town because everything was being done in private. And that was a great thing!
Mind you, G+ also made some insane and boneheaded decisions. I think at one point they tried to make all Youtube comments also be G+ posts under your real name, or something like that? That was fucking stupid.
People will make frequent mistakes if you put the privacy decision at a per post level. (And not just average users: see stevey's Google Platforms rant)
Having different apps, chats (Discord servers), accounts (at-a-push) for each privacy circle is much clearer to average users. Migrating a whole group of any size to another platform is hard, hence many of us are stuck with Facebookk in case we get invited to something we don't want to miss on it, but new platforms will continue to emerge and some will succeed.
> It was clearly put together by somebody who thought first and foremost about privacy.
Except that they worked for a company that clearly wants all of your data. Privacy and Google are often at odds with each other… and for the folks that understood privacy at the time, it was a hard sell unless they worked at Google.
Privacy to me means that even Google doesn’t get to peek in whenever they feel like it.
Another mistake is that they had a significant presence in Brazil through Orkut, but they didn’t bother to integrate and migrate the users in.
Orkut’s user base was already degraded through Facebook but it was not inexistent, as some features of Orkut were unique. One was that it allowed people to use alt accounts to participate on anonymous discussion, not much different from Reddit, I’m sure with some creativeness G+ could have benefited from extra users.
Orkut Büyükkökten's orkut.com might have been a semi-private project (Google, like any company, doesn't normally name its products after first names of its coders).
Also, as you say, it was populated by many Brazilians, an imbalance like that may discourage non-Brazilians from joining, so not sure if integrating them would have helped or hurt.
The biggest boneheaded decision from my perspective was their taking over the + prefix in Google search (to filter for results that have this term verbatim). That just positioned G+ as my enemy and I had a strong desire for it to die. Unfortunately, they didn't bring back the prefix even after it died. Quotes around a term do something similar, but I am still angry.
According to Wikipedia, G+ usage kept growing from about 40M that October to 90M by the end of 2011 and then to hundreds of millions over the next few years, but the reporting methodology seems very inconsistent.
G+ died because it was clown colored google product, not a communal space for people. It was technology without any aesthetic that made you want to be there.
Myspace was hilarious because it was such a mess. The people owned it, hacked the css. Every profile page was a messy real person.
Beside my friend who was gifted with invitation, there was nobody else from my circles (sic) and when asked they were replying with standard "why I should make yet another account". So for me it was a ghost town right from the start.
And frankly it was actually the first place where I truly noticed how big companies are extracting data from us; back then I felt really unpleasant when I tried to fill up profile.
I've got this old screenshot [1] and profile included: about me, "I know this stuff", current occupation, employment history, education path, place of residence with map, home and work addresses, relationship status and what kind of partner you are looking for, gender, other names - maiden name, alternative spelling, nickname, visibility in search results and a section for links to other websites. This may be seen as not much today but back then even facebook wasn't that "curious" - that was about to change.
I also tried to utilize Google Wave for our university group to keep us informed etc., but people wanted just "plain old" emails with attachments.
Even worse was Google Wave. Totally unusable from the start, which is when I tried it, due to all the hype (by them) about it. Probably too JavaScript-heavy, was the reason, I think, back then. I remember reading reports confirming my guess, at the time. I was on an average machine. I bet the Google devs had quite more powerful ones, and in their infinite wisdom (not!), did not trouble to test, or even think of testing on average machines that most of the world would have.
Google Wave worked fine for me, as I recall. I remember being really impressed on one level, but I also couldn't figure out what to actually use it for.
A couple weeks ago, I thought about diving back into demos to reacquaint myself with it. It's possible that it was ahead of its time. Or maybe it was a solution in search of a problem.
G+ copied some features and design work the open source federated social media, particularly Diaspora. So yeah, a lot of the features were developed in context of privacy protections.
yeah they made a lot of mistakes, the biggest one was not iterating on making it a good product. they just dumped it into the world, mostly formed and did nothing with it.
it had a lot of good ideas like you said it just needed to make it simpler to use, maybe even make the circles stuff not default though i didn't have much trouble with it
forcing everyone to use something that still had teething issues was the biggest screw up, if they wanted to integrate youtube they should have started with making G+ popular so people would actually want that, and yeah real names so dumb.
blizzard tried that as well lol. then some guy rang up blizzard hq and told one of the higher ups where his kids went to school and they suddenly realised full name is actually too much information
I remember that the (initial) invite-only aspect played out in the worst way. Some FOMO angle works, but it ended up just ... not working, and who joins a social media wastleland?
+ also got a bad rap due to what happened to Youtube - merged accounts - and yeah Google acted in some awful ways in more than one way but they were also trying to solve a problem of Zuck's shifting views on privacy (or rather the same view, that it shouldn't exist)
It probably wasn't the worst thing ever to try to leverage some of the existing social networking going on on YouTube, but combining it with a real name policy and making the actual posts/comments into first class global content for the G+ feed? Idiotic, and completely undermined the whole premise of safely walling off your content to its intended audience.
(See also: nice how reddit now makes it possible to curate the list of which subs you participate in whose comments and posts appear on your global profile page)
Reddit is fucking miserable. I don't want to claim they profited solely off the work of Swarz, because his involvement wasn't... total, I mean he left, but it feels like one of these things where mediocre people get control over something which was initially made by people who actually know what they're doing
Things like this can often be assessed on a macro level. When you start to get the number of users sites like Facebook have and sites like Reddit claim they have, you end up with content that's reflective of a broad sample of society. You do have that on Facebook, you do not have that on Reddit.
I suspect Reddit is intentionally overcounting by doing things like counting multiple devices as different users, multiple accounts as different users, making minimal efforts to remove bots, counting dynamic IPs as distinct users, and so on. You could even count API callers as users, but that is stretching the limits of plausible deniability. The thing is - their content isn't reflective of the popular town bar, it's representative of an insular clubhouse with some small rooms in the backyard for 'normies.'
I tried to start using Reddit. None of my friends had ever heard of it or wanted to use it, and I soon lost interest in it.
From my little experience of using it, it seems that its main audience is the mentally retarded or just children under 11 years old.
The same questions are asked all the time. It wasn't difficult for me to find a search on the site for why they don't use it?
There is a lot of nonsense in the comments/answers, which they state with full confidence.
And there was also a feeling that there are rarely disagreements in discussions, even if there are minor differences, everyone adheres to a single line, often related to the topic/name of the subreddit.
I found several people creating content that I was interested in, but some of the posts on the page were hidden and it was easier to follow them on YouTube or blogs.
In general, searching for valuable posts or comments is like digging through manure to find gold.
And even if you find a clever idea or a good technical hint, it was often easier to find it just by reading the documentation. It's the same with interesting posts. If it's something worthwhile, then it will be on twitter, blog, YouTube, social networks or in some forums.
I'm not talking about advertising every second post, or even among the comments. Disabling ad blocking was a mistake.
> it's representative of an insular clubhouse with some small rooms in the backyard for 'normies.'
A very appropriate definition. It's not even interesting to discuss something on Reddit. If your opinion or thought coincides with the ideology of the subreddit, then you will have a lot of likes.
If it don't match, you get dislikes, insults, or worse, no response.
In general, I did not find any benefit for myself on Reddit and I am unlikely to return there, it is a waste of energy and effort.
Reddit is a bunch of bar districts in a large city. You can find any sort of bar you want. Some of the bars you'll love. Some of them you'll hate. Some of them will make you say "what the hell is any of this?"
It's an almost infinite variety. Fractal even with how many subreddits are the results of splits from an older subreddit.
You can find any sort of bar you want, but all of them are owned by the same shady company which waters down the drinks, are involved in secret backroom deals which sometimes results in things like selling your personal info or in bars being closed without notice. They also refuse to give the bouncers the training and resources they need which leaves many bars full of jerks who shouldn't have made it inside in the first place, while in other bars you can find yourself thrown out for no reason at all.
It's kind of like an American grocery store where you have shelf after shelf filled with different brand names and products in all kinds of colors and flavors, but they're all owned by one of three corporations so it really doesn't matter which product you buy, you're still supporting the same assholes who will gladly poison you if it'll increase their profits by a fraction of a cent, so naturally most of your choice comes down to the flavor of the poison.
One of the things I hope will come from the Trough of Disillusionment in cloud computing will be families running redundant file servers hosting the family photos instead of doing everything on IG.
Your three tech savvy family members should all have redundant copies of the photos of memaw’s wedding and Uncle Jim when he was 2 and looked exactly like your cousin’s second kid. I don’t need to see those. Your stalker ex boyfriend definitely doesn’t need to see those. It’s none of our goddamned business.
Someone, I think WD? Already made a play at this but I think it fell on deaf ears and will have to be tried again after the hype cycle calms tf down.
My very vibes-based take is that setting up home servers is the dad jeans of tech hobbies. It's kind of arresting how bewildered many young people are when confronted with anything below the UI layer. I think peak tech savviness happened a bit younger than me: maybe mid-late millennial. After that you start getting into the iPad-from-birth generation for whom tech was rarely a challenge. Tech savviness among young folks feels more like it was in the mid-90s. They're infinity more online-savvy, no doubt, but when it comes to knowing anything about how that works, they're cooked.
I do know some non-developer Gen Z folks that would set up minecraft servers on DO droplets, but I don't know of any that actually made their own and hosted it on their own network.
Aside from more exposure to raw tech, the technology making the internet happen was a lot simpler back then, where servers were actually physical servers,and such. I was able to adopt the complexity progressively as it came into existence which is a lot easier with the base knowledge of how the building blocks worked.
This is my impression as well. From what I've seen, many Gen Z people only loosely even think in terms of things like "files". They are used to integrations where everything just lives on some website or in a Google app and the way you locate things is by searching.
I am a professor of CS and we found, post-pandemic, that very few students had any exposure to real computers. It was all smartphones and tablets. So the things you mention—not knowing what a file is—really is the state of things. We now explicitly talk about files in our intro programming courses, first as a general idea in CS1, and then we dig into (some of) the representations in CS2.
Although there has also been a softening of math skills among the weakest students, the best students are still quite capable, so the erosion is mostly in tech skills, not analytical skills.
I'm also noticing another trend with my 16yr old daughter and her friends. They are craving old school offline experiences. They have all dragged out the parents and relatives old music collections, cruising second hand shops for old CDs etc. when they visit others houses they are checking out each other's household book and music collections.
She recently got a cheap digital camera with no screen and just a shutter button and and plain old viewfinder. The idea is that like the old days you don't know what you took a photo of until (a bit like getting the film developed) you plug the SD card into a computer and have a look.
I think she'd get a kick out of ripping CDs and ditching Spotify. I can teach her all about files and filesystems then haha.
My 19yr old son doesn't follow the same old school stuff, but he kinda shunned social media from the beginning.
I’d like a turnkey k3s and a 10” rack designed for consumers. Set up to host your Minecraft server, store your media, and be incrementally upgradeable.
Building PCs by hand nowadays is quite trivial. You don't need to set bunch of jumpers on the motherboard correctly, manually assign IRQs, etc. The peak "complexity" modern gamers deal with is correctly overclocking their gear without frying it or making the system unstable (which is mostly done in some nice GUI according to a youtube tutorial anyway).
I just set up a little cube server with a Mini-ITX board I had lying around. Overall I'm very happy with it, but right now it's basically just Unraid with the built-in containers running for Deluge, Jellyfin, and the Crafty minecraft server.
I'd love for it to also be a backup of my whole Google Photos account (eg https://github.com/JakeWharton/docker-gphotos-sync) but honestly I can't imagine trying to maintain an app on there that would actually be the first class storage/sync/presentation layer for my family.
> I can't imagine trying to maintain an app on there that would actually be the first class storage/sync/presentation layer for my family.
Immich exists. It really is missing only some editing functionality and some nice-to-have features from GPhotos like automatic panoramas. Other than that, it's superior to Google.
I'm working on it! I have a little NUC that I'm learning Linux (Is that the proper term?) on. I plan to self host a few services for myself and host family photos on it someday.
I'm going through a "Deep, Vast, Trough of Learning" at the moment :>
For $125, which is also about the price of one year of cloud storage, you can get a hard drive big enough to store half a million photos and also back up a million photos. It probably won't ever go over $200.
And the hardware to serve that hard drive is somewhere between free and another hundred.
Sure, but then you're putting all your eggs in one basket (hard drive). If you really want to divest yourself of the cloud then you need to set things up in a redundant and fault-tolerant fashion. And at that point the outlay is much more than 'just a hard drive'.
Did you skip the "back a million photos" part? That's at least 3 copies of every file, spread across your group. If you want maximum safety you can add a local backup too, which isn't much more money. You don't need to spend anything on fault tolerance. Your files should already be on multiple servers, but also if it goes down for a few days that isn't a big deal.
I’ve been thinking about setting up a family domain and just hosting my family’s pictures to it as a way to share internally. But the risk exposure of running anything online is just so bad now, it feels risky and a pain in the ass to both give family access to see and post but also seal it off from spammers and scammers.
The way in which any open text box on the internet is guaranteed to turn into a malware vector is new now, and makes casual and marginally technical users trying their own thing much higher stakes and annoying.
If you setup a server at home, you can expose it via a cloudflare tunnel, meanwhile it's behind your firewall + NAT. This will obfuscate the server IP a bit. It allows allows you to use very simple cloudflare Zero Trust rules to only allow people to access your server/website from people with a user account on that domain. (Or geographical restrictions, etc, etc)
It's interesting to see how much of a behemoth Discord has become. Seems like there's a Discord for everything - from open source projects to hobbies and games to individual groups of friends/family.
It's occupying the segment that subreddits historically have. However, it's perhaps-intentionally search-opaque. You can't Google to find a message/link/download that's gated by Discord. And it also gives a sense of community, where someone who had more attention and time on a computer than a sense of what to do with those things can go have casual conversation with… someone.
Discord is really where it is at these days. Discord servers with 50-100 people form the new social fabric of the internet where real community lies. In theory Reddit was supposed to be this but
1. Reddit communities tend to get too large
2. Subreddits overflow into each other too much through cross posting and brigading
3. Post history being public meant that you could get banned/brigaded for your comments on a totally different subreddit (i.e. bots autobanning you on one subreddit for posting on another subreddit).
The magic of discord is that everyone in the server I frequent I either know personally or they are known by someone I know personally. It creates a nice fabric of community and trust. Literally zero moderation over the past 10 years as everyone knows each other and behaves like normal adults and we also don’t get all up in arms when someone says something controversial.
The culture on discords tend to be way better than anywhere else on the internet, but discord really sucks to use. Somehow still doesn’t have a usable search, really underpowered notifications control, they have the worst pop ups imaginable that seem to just float on top of the whole interface and make it impossible to use.
I also want levels of notifications.
Especially emergency one - Some channels are super critical and I want to be notified immediately, give me a popup, ring my phone, override if my phone is on mute, then call me.
Kind of like pagerduty.
I lurk in a bunch of Discords for things I'm not active in, but don't want to have to find an invite to if I need to ask a question in the future.
I always have a notification badge on Discord, and I hate it. Too many servers have channels where I get pinged, even though the channel is muting. I'm presuming someone is doing something like "hey @all, play with me"
I ought to be able to register that I will never ever care about this channel. Please ignore it for me.
The problem with Discord is that I have to know exactly where stuff is for me to access it.
There is absolutely zero chance I find something interesting on Discord just by "browsing" Discord. I have to be in a community that already exists elsewhere to get the Discord server link or just accidentally stumble upon the server link somewhere other than Discord.
And If I do find an interesting Discord that is active, forget about seeing what people were talking about before.
All the interesting and or useful stuff posted on Discord is completely walled off and hidden away and might as well not exist after it was posted. I'm never going to find a Discord thread when browsing for something on the internet.
I genuinely think Discord is one of the more terrible things that has happened to the internet and the fact that it is replacing forums is a damn shame.
Everything you just said is, through another lens, the boons of Discord. Lack of discoverability and permanence are a big part of why communities are moving and forming there.
Though there may be some very good information locked behind unsearchable discord servers, and that won't be publicly archived for the greater good (not that most of reddit isn't forgettable).
I think the only people who don't know what discord anymore is the 50+ crowd. Atleast 50% of the randos I talk with online have discord as their preferred method for texting and voice communication and immediately want to switch to it if possible. And if older people actually cared about doxxing themselves with every conversation they would probably have a higher percentage too.
I don't know what the right way to handle intersecting identities is.
Most of my online identities were started when I was in college and was happy to have them tied to my real name. (This is also when Facebook was popular, still good, and college-kids-only.) Since then, cancel culture et. al. has made me more wary of having my identity-adjacent usernames show up in hobbies like gaming.
If I want to be myname in some Discord servers and anonoguy in others, is there a safe way to enforce that boundary? What about if I want to work on gaming-related open source projects or 3D prints?
As the internet moves to logged-in-and-social-by-default, it's hard to know which identity to use for which service. Moreover, when things are constantly leaking/being hacked, I don't know that I want any service to know that anonoguy and myname are personas of the same individual.
And as LLMs become the standard, I'm not sure any of this is defensible. I imagine in a decade's time, it will be trivial for an LLM to go "this account and that account have similar interests/references/ways of typing - they must be the same person."
I'm (barely) under 50, but I kind of hate it. I have no idea how to handle the un-threaded flood of messages, and much prefer something like Reddit, message boards, or even FB groups. I felt the same way about IRC back in the day and never got into it.
I use Slack at work, but at least there I have a workable plan: no notifications for most channels, read or at least skim all messages in every channel by EOD, don't read it outside of business hours unless I get a DM. Also, absolutely never join the chatty #random type channels.
As someone with two teenage kids, I would wager that this is highly age-dependent, and that it is exactly reversed the younger you go. My guess is 99% of the under-25 population uses Discord daily and has never had a Facebook account.
In which country? The young adults in my UK family aren't using Discord. They don't use Facebook (except to keep up with older family/associates) either though.
US. What are they using in UK? WhatsApp? That kinda counts as Facebook, I suppose. But then again, is WhatsApp really a direct competitor with Discord?
By the numbers, Discord is definitely more popular in the US, though it is pretty popular in the UK too.
In the US this is likely a wildly high overestimate because a huge percentage of the population plays video games at least casually and it has a very large mindshare (if not necessarily daily use for everyone) in that domain.
Moving into things like sports and what we would've called the "general blogosphere" in 2010 quite rapidly too.
I kinda hate it since it's hard to discover, but at least Google can't direct a million bots to it either that easily yet...
Given that I recently joined a leatherworking Discord comprised of individuals pretty much the exact opposite of my demographic, I believe this is just plain wrong.
My guess would be near half, probably a 60/40 split.
> 3. Post history being public meant that you could get banned/brigaded for your comments on a totally different subreddit (i.e. bots autobanning you on one subreddit for posting on another subreddit).
You can make it private now. Personally I think this is a bit of a misfeature since it ends up helping all the low-activity users showing up to post political agitprop in local subreddits, thinly-veiled advertisers, etc., but they changed it.
I wonder if the act of switching between discord servers works better with our homo erectus brains. You visit your sister who moved to the next village over, and you hang out in that context until it’s time to go home. You go hang out with the stone shapers because you’re a Neolithic nerd and you think rocks are cool but you have the find motor skills of a dying walrus.
Having all of your social circle mashed together on the internet is like a family reunion at a convention in the same room as your high school reunion. It’s… a lot.
I think this is almost certainly true. People aren’t built to be acceptable to an audience the size of a football stadium, they’re built to be acceptable to a hundred or so people at a time. If you can comfortably context-switch, it’s probably a much easier lifestyle.
I know that for me, at least, I like having one server where the comedy is not PC, one server where people seem to be a little more philosophical, one server for my real life friends, one server full of leftoids and one server full of rightards, etc.
In the plastic instrument games genre, there are some Discords where any wisp of using commercial music will be met with a stern reaction and potential ban. There are others that will link you to Drives full of thousands of songs from old games. The same people are in both groups.
Sort of like the people who work in big tech and the people who post on Hacker News. You'd think the intersection is an empty set, but it's probably pretty large.
The problem about this, for me, is discoverability. I have loads of hobbies that I'd love to engage with the communities of, but how do you engage with servers of that size without actively being invited to them?
Why doesn’t Signal have the same mindspace that these (imo) marginal apps have? It’s actually private. I wonder if people find it hard to use or something…
Until recently, I think the only way to join a Signal was to be explicitly added by a member. It doesn't have all the channels etc. of something like Discord.
It doesn't have enough mindshare by normies either. In San Francisco, my entire social graph was on Signal. In NYC, I'm the weirdo that uses Signal for everything. Most locals seem to only use it for things that they explicitly want to be private. Among Euro friends, only the ones with ties to the US/tech industry use it.
Or just not a buggy piece of crap. It’s more stable than it used to be, but I still run into random problems here and there. Much more often than with any other piece of software I use regularly, but I suppose most are becoming web apps anyways…
Subreddits ultimately took over when Usenet moderation failed to keep up. I had chat groups before the Web was really even a thing and they lived on until things like Slashdot and Digg took the reins.
I wonder if there are any old school protocols out there to create a huge business around by just centralizing them and offering features people have been asking for decades.
Slack had the ability to be Discord, but they explicitly decided they wanted to be business-only.
React was the first open-source community I knew of that outgrew/got kicked off of Slack and moved to Discord. Now, it seems Slack is only used by companies, and occasionally by smaller groups (apartment buildings, school parents, etc) where someone in the group knows Slack from work and doesn't know it's hostile to non-businesses.
Discord was the opposite. I was working on an open source initiative at Google at the time, and the Discord folks openly welcomed us. They even gave us someone's contact info, in case we had needs they weren't addressing. This was when it was still targeted just for gaming, but they were very welcoming of OSS projects using it too!
As I write this, I realize that Discord is what "Google Apps for your Domain" was and Slack is the "Google Workspace" it became.
One thing that's having a little comeback is the email newsletter (see Beehiiv). There's something nice about being able to get exactly what you signed up for and nothing more. No ads, no recommended content, no infinite scroll.
Yeah ever since email spam filters have been effective, email can now work as a social network. I genuinely think it's an untapped opportunity for the next "great thing".
It's funny how things change but stay the same. I cut my teeth online in the mid nineties with usenet and IRC. When reddit got big, subreddits always reminded me of usenet groups. Now Discord is big and reminds me of IRC. Substack reminds me of personal blogs. Twitter/X sort of reminds me of ICQ/AIM.
None of the numbers I've seen on web usage, platform usage, etc. indicate people are significantly pulling away from online lives. Though, there has been a slight dip in daily social media browsing time in the last couple of years (of course, it also follows the end of the pandemic, and it hasn't ceded back to where it was prior).
That does sound like a rather charmed life though. Could also be a sign that people are reverting to using the social internet apart from their irl acquaintances as well.
Linking up with all of our irl acquaintances through the public web was a terrible mistake imo. Seeking privacy can mean many different things.
I think the platforms have changed. FB used to be 100% posts by people you know. I opened it today, and maybe 1 out of 50 posts were by someone i know, the rest was "trending" content.
Its essentially an entirely different website now.
For what it is worth, here is my experience with Facebook, [a platform that I have learnt to love after my Twitter ban]: I go to the main page, I immediately click the magnifying lens, so I get the list of unread posts of the 10to20 groups I follow. I read them quickly. Then leave.
I do that, on a daily basis.
Time spent: usually 20 minutes.
Reddit is 99% search only. I go there only on a purpose. [might be replaced by Gemini, eventually]
HN and Alterslash are probably the only source of random info that I still consume.
May be that information containment is a reaction to my 15+ years of addiction to [the good old] Twitter. Or because I have reached age 50.
But the consequence is that I get the news late, and usually because of a search I did. Not because of a proactive algorithm.
Additional thought: in the end I suppose my information un-déluge is the proof that algorithms eventually failed to deliver [i.e point me at things meaningful to me]. The biggest example is Spotify proposals. That is 1% of my music discovery, whereas traditional non-commercial radios and dedicated podcasts are [human curated and] much more diverse.
Would it show up in the numbers on web usage, platform usage, etc? People who do this drop out of the sample - they don't show up in the numbers. As far as your stat gathering is concerned, they don't exist.
If you're actually doing a census of people and asking about their web usage and social habits, it'd show up. So maybe Google or Facebook has the data if they were to do say cohort analysis on Google Analytics or Chrome History or Facebook beacon logs, counting specifically the number of total unique Internet users that used to visit social media but no longer do. But such an analysis would require SVP-level privacy approval (because it joins together personal, non-anonymized data across multiple products), and why would an executive commission a study that potentially tells them that their job is in danger and their employer is making a mistake by employing them? And if they did, why would they ever publicize the results?
AFAIK, most of the major public-facing analytics platforms work by sampling their users. If their users are voluntarily choosing not to engage with the platform that their sampling runs on, they by definition cannot measure that change. They just become a biased sample that excludes specifically the population they're trying to measure.
But they still READ. So, if you 'interact' (and by that I mean do any write-like action, like commenting, posting, liking, whatever) less, that's gonna show up.
They don't, at least not necessarily. I look at my HN history and it's 13 hours ago, 6 days ago, 8 days ago, 13 days ago. Fifteen years ago I was #2 on the leaderboard (itself now gone, it listed users by total comment karma) and would post about 4-5 times a day. Now when I'm not posting, I'm actually not on the site and not reading replies. I just don't have time.
I think a decent-sized subset of Millennials have basically aged out of the time-surplus years of the early 20s and are now busy with kids and careers and families. And they aren't being replaced by the new 20-somethings, at least not on social media of the same form. The kids are still on text messages and Whatsapp and Discord and Roblox and Google Docs (!!), but they aren't interested in getting on the public Internet, and if they are, their parents won't let them.
My two kids absolutely do not trust open social media (thankfully). My 16 year old has a IMessage group with his friends as well as a discord and that’s it. My 13 year old just uses iMessage with his friend group. My wife and I have taught them the risks of social media but never to the degree of their current distrust. They seem to have picked it ip on their own and want no part of X, insta, TikTok or anything else. They just want to talk to the friends they know.
> Our 30-year bender of putting our lives online and blurring the public and the private has finally ended
I wish you were right. We took our kid to a stage show she really wanted to see. People round us kept checking their phones. They weren’t even really checking them. They held them and would turn the screen on and off, lighting the place up.
They couldn’t be without them for more than 5 minutes. This, after 30 mins of painful selfies before the show. It’s awful.
I don't think the vibe shift they're describing has fully taken place yet, but I think the foundations have been laid and it's started. It's probably going to be a while and take further societal changes to fully come into fruition, though.
AR glasses coupled with a sophisticated input device (fingertap? tounguetap?) will eventually be able to fully replace a touchscreen interface. And from then on it'll eventually become dated and rude to resort to pulling out touch screens during a social event.
Mind you, inconsiderate people will be as distracted as ever, and will continue to halfheartedly pretend they're listening to those around them. They'll just need to find a new method to achieve maximal obnoxiousness.
Many people are simultaneously sharing to the broader internet less (the claim you're responding to) AND more addicted to media shared by the ones who DO share stuff then ever (the claim you're making).
People didn’t leave social media, social media left them. Instagram used to show your friends, not it shows algorithmic content. Same for the other networks. People are still there but it’s now the new tv.
Everyone should be simply posting algorithmic content to Facebook. Screenshots, etc not giving them your own life stuff imo. We need to push back on personalized feeds. Share a high percentage of what you see so that there is a digital commons and not just some island for each person.
Social media platform used to be less about passive consumption.
It's the people with money, houses, and kids that departed the 'simple local' lifestyle when the Internet and social media become large. It's them that are re-discovering the joys of the simple local lifestyle.
The simple local lifestyle is that which was lived by all of humanity for all of history up until the last ~75 years (give or take).
> The simple local lifestyle is that which was lived by all of humanity for all of history up until the last ~75 years (give or take).
A percentage of people still traveled, communicated, traded and migrated to other places in the past. Cities were a mix of lots of people, commerce, news. It was just slower and a smaller percentage. Look at the letters of Paul in the bible. He was writing to different communities around the Roman Empire, and traveled to them when he could.
Looking at the big picture, trade, communication and migration are the norm over human history. We colonized the world before the Industrial Revolution, some humans did it thousands of years prior.
I'd say it was much shorter than 30 years. Facebook opened to the public in 2006, and I was surprised to learn Myspace (the first "normie" space on the Web) isn't much older. And before that your digital persona was separate from your offline persona, unless you were one of the grognards with a faculty .edu address.
What’s really interesting to me is how this coincides with a larger push to break up more and more ties that kept our society going for the last 30–50 years. Look at what’s happening to globalization and the push to near-shore. Look at the fragmentation of media into private channels and closed groups, the erosion of shared narratives, and the growing skepticism toward institutions that used to act as connective tissue.
Individually, many of these shifts make sense: resilience over efficiency, trust over reach, local over global. But collectively they point to a world that is becoming more segmented, less interoperable, and harder to coordinate at scale. If fewer people participate in shared public spaces, economic, cultural, or informational, it’s not just advertising models that break, but the assumptions underpinning growth, politics, and even social cohesion.
That doesn’t necessarily mean collapse, but it does suggest a lower energy equilibrium: slower growth, fewer mass phenomena, more parallel realities. The open question is whether we can rebuild new forms of shared infrastructure and trust at smaller scales—or whether we simply learn to live with a more fragmented, quieter, and less synchronized society.
That doesn't really sound bad to me. I think we expanded our social reach too far and need to scale back to where we can feel like we have an impact and our voice matters.
The brief period where I could check Facebook and reliably find someone's name I forgot or figure out how to contact people or invite them to a gathering was pretty nice. Now everyone's on fifty apps I don't use, or installed but never remember to check. Oh well. Sorry, too stimulating for me to join your Discord and get hundreds of notifications, most of which don't concern me at all.
I’ve known a lot of neurodivergent and LGBT people, and I was in my late teens when The Internet happened and a young adult when the Web happened.
If you’re not within a couple standard deviations of boring, local living is isolating. Al Gore gave a mea culpa speech at one point because he thought, as a Senator, that legislating to give everyone the Internet would halt the rural brain drain but it had the opposite effect. People learned that they weren’t alone, they were just surrounded by (my words, not his) idiots and so they moved to where their people were. They voted with their feet in droves.
Ultimately, the Internet is good for support. It lets you find people who have the same obscure cancer your child has. Who are dealing with the same sort of neuroses your mom has. Who are being defrauded by a corporation in the same way. Who have the same feelings that the people around you ridicule you for even the hint of having. It lets these people find the patterns, see other people are feeling the same things they do, stop being gaslit.
Everything else has become about dopamine and money. And for those parts we should definitely unplug. But without forums or chat threads that same feeling of being The Other comes back.
> people don't want to be online, don't trust social media, don't really trust any media, and are living simple local lives with a small circle of friends that they get together with regularly in person.
Not true. People post their entire lives (OK not entire, but the positive parts) on social media every day for the public to see.
> people don't want to be online, don't trust social media, don't really trust any media, and are living simple local lives with a small circle of friends that they get together with regularly in person.
Yeah, these are genuinely the only people worth advertising to anymore in a practical sense, if you are selling something non-essential.
Because of the K shaped economy a lot of people in the US are spending whatever they make on bare essentials like rent, food and paying off debt like student loans and consumer debt.
Advertise to those masses all you want, on whatever platforms you want, cant get water from a stone.
From my own experience as one grows over their 30's, or probably much older, to get to what you mentioned "money, houses, kids, friends", these ads pretty much don't target u very effectively any ways because one's priorities are shifted and you care more about other things than what the attention economy is all about. IOW these ads all about the people who have attention to spare.
This one is on its way to becoming part of the social media ecosystem. That's what the "Updates" feature is.
To get an idea of what it will look like, check out Instagram users who use it for both 1:1 messaging and social media (1:many) features. Which (again anecdotally) is widely used in younger generations.
Few of my friends use Instagram or TikTok, but I think we're just outliers. I see many (young) users, all the time, whenever I'm on the train.
> It's an interesting thought experiment to explore what it means if that actually is the new normal, and people are not consuming media or much of anything, or even if the people who are still addicted to social media are now tapped out and don't have any more disposable income left to spend.
Even if they do have disposable income to spend, the lack of working ads means that they're getting their vendors in a different way.
Some speculation follows: If advertisements as the main driver of sales went away, wouldn't that help smaller players gain a foothold against incumbents? Because, while incumbents can use their war chest to push all newcomers to page 2 of the results. If the awareness is coming from somewhere else, being on page 2 of the results doesn't matter anymore, because no one is even seeing page 1 of the results anyway!
You just reminded me that a few years ago I was doing some product research and one of the questions I'd ask people was what technical communities they turned to regularly. To keep up with news, if they had a question to ask they needed an answer to (this was pre-LLM hype days). HN, Reddit, StackOverflow, and various Slack communities dominated the results for people I spoke to in the USA. I was shocked by how much private WhatsApp groups dominated amongst the respondents from Africa (Nigeria representing the overwhelming majority of people who I spoke to).
At the time it felt to me they were missing out on so many other useful resources. Maybe I was wrong. It's interesting to see things trending in a similar direction now.
I am a gen-z and most of my peers look at me weird when I express the same. It was once cool to have social media and presence -- I was only 8 when I made a facebook account. But now, things are different. I actively avoid social media and don't like to show myself online anywhere other than my personal website.
Meta appears to believe this, and so is pushing chatbot integration into private chats on Messenger and WhatsApp; presumably that will be the vector by which they push product advertisements.
> Our 30-year bender of putting our lives online and blurring the public and the private has finally ended: people don't want to be online, don't trust social media, don't really trust any media, and are living simple local lives with a small circle of friends that they get together with regularly in person.
That's a nice narrative, but its simplicity clashes with reality.
> my anecdotal experience, it's moved to private, trust-based channels: iMessage, WhatsApp, email, face-to-face interactions
I can attest to this based on my circle of friends and acquaintances. Email not so much but yeah WA etc. I think people are done putting content that matters to them on public platforms. So all we see now on FB/Insta is memes, influencers or ads.
I regularly do improv every week, which is essentially improvised live theater. So some time is spent not watching youtube or some sort of electronic intermediaries.
Which is actually pretty odd, because improvisational comedy as we know it today is younger than the film industry.
> Why would it plunge instead of re-focusing on things that are intrinsically important?
Because a lot of the economy is focused on creating and maintaining a surplus[1]: make people buy things that they don't really need, make them discard and replace things that they've been convinced are no longer worth it.
That's the current state yes. But that doesn't mean it's the only possible state. If that wasteful consumption disappear, would anyone be worse off? Hardly. But it would free up capacity to do more actually useful and valuable things. Sounds like a win to me.
100% this. I remember when I took advantage of being online and not really competing in SEO, it was simply a matter of being real. At the time, I didn’t realize it was just arbitrage: I was naturally in a space with fewer participants and most organizations didn’t even know the rules yet.
Now that advantage is completely gone, and I have to build business the way it’s always been done in history: walking the streets while the online "broadcasted" world is a massive distraction.
I think you're correct to a degree. Instututions like social media and google ads were given a very generous chance, we gave them our money and attention, they gave us scams (especially facebook) and enshittification.
The loss of faith in institutions takes quite a long time to occur but I think it will be quite a bit of effort to reverse.
> The person kept making the comment that she couldn't see/find the puck and it made it frustrating to watch.
Lifelong hockey fan, I never understood this complaint. I believe it was FOX that did the 'highlight the puck' thing for a few years in the 1990's.
You can't see the ball in American football, either.
But you don't need to. The guy that's running and everyone is trying to tackle? He has the ball. Just like the guy skating across the ice with his stick on the ground? He's got the puck.
When you CAN see the puck/ball, either someone lost control of it, or they're shooting/throwing/passing it.
You're right - it was called FoxTrax, it's a fairly interesting piece of engineering.
It's pretty wild they were able to convince the NHL to use a modified puck with a battery and PCB inside, all so American viewers could better follow the action.
Well, the current puck still has emitters inside of it.
> [1] Puck and Player Tracking became fully operational in 2021-22, with up to 20 cameras in each arena and infrared emitters in each puck and sweater.
The player tracking is fairly easy to see; there's often an airtag sized bump on a player's jersey.
The puck tracking can be a bit more difficult but sometimes the puck looks like it's melting the ice behind it. That's just them giving it a grey shadow instead of the neon shadow.
It was not well received anywhere. However, in a bit of defense of the idea, TV at that time was still NTSC (~480p resolution at 24 frames/s) and it was pretty hard to see the puck even if you knew where it was.
Just a nitpick: analog NTSC was roughly 480i at (just under) 30 FPS. The latter is significant, as 3:2 pulldown (as would have been necessary if the station's cameras were scanning at 24 FPS) would have introduced judder and made tracking even harder. To its credit, interlacing also improved motion clarity at the expense of loss of detail, but whether that's a net benefit ultimately amounts to a matter of preference.
As a gamer this seems obvious to me. It's long been clear to me that our eyes are very adept at processing high-speed motion. Even the first 120Hz LCD gaming monitor, as sucky as it was, was miles bette than the 60 Hz on the market.
So while technically our eyes might not discern individual frames higher than 25 FPS or so, our brain can absolutely process data from a much higher effeice framerate. The motion blur fast thing naturally produce for example, provides critical context clues.
In gaming, sure 240 Hz won't help you see more as such, but it allows your eyes to do what they naturally do and give a much improved experience of fluidity and superior motion prediction.
I find this interesting - before we switched from 5/4 aspect ratio, it was hard to find the puck because the camera was always chasing - but if you know hockey (e.g., watch enough of it) there are a lot of cues about where the puck is or will be, now that we have a wider aspect ratio.
pretty common with my crowd of fans to even get a little giddy when the play is so deceptive that it fakes out the camera man and they dont realize theyre focused on the wrong player until a second or two passes
So yes, in "trick" plays you can't see the ball. But neither can the defense.
Having watched hockey AND US football my entire life, you can't compare the two. Totally different styles of sports and thus comparing your ability to see the 2 doesn't make sense.
to add: There has never been a football in history that had the ball going from one end of the field to the other and back. And yet, this happpens in hockey regularly and within seconds.
I like the basketball, volleyball, and baseball way where the noun before ball has some leeway but should be clearly identified with an aspect of the sport.
football -> tackleball
rugby -> tossball
cricket -> paddleball
golf -> clubball
hockey -> icepuck
It gets the name from "rugby football" from the time where both rugby and international football ("soccer") were considered related sports and often shared rules and associations (such as the London Football Association, from which Princeton imported rules to the US, and which eventually started to split as the sports split further).
The change in shape from a round ball to the "handegg" eventually derived from the first American innovation in "rugby football" of the forward pass. Even with the forward pass, the game required kicks into goals for a long while with the "touchdown" a further later innovation (though also influenced by reimporting rugby rules, as it relates to the rugby "try"). Kick offs, punts, field goals, and extra point attempts all still vestigially remain from the rugby origins even as most of the play in between them changed drastically.
American Football is called "football" because it evolved from the "football family". It's like using the term "romance language": Spanish and Italian sound very different today, but they both share roots in Latin. They've also both changed a lot since the days when Latin was a living language.
> You can't see the ball in American football, either.
Tell me you're not from the US without telling me. This is apples and oranges.
Unless it's a trick play, you 100% know where the ball is.
How many times in football does the ball go from one end to the other and back? Never. In hockey that happens regularly, and in seconds. That's why comparing them in this context isn't correct.
I'd go a step further and say the ball/puck is not the interesting thing to watch.
Imagine if you couldn't see the players, and just saw the puck. Would that be interesting at all?
Think about tennis. There is the trope of people's eyes going back and forth following the ball, but I don't think they are following the ball directly. They are going back and forth looking at the person who is going to hit the ball.
I think you might be conflating knowing where the puck is with being able to fix your eyes on the puck at all times. The complaint is usually about the former. People are complaining that they don't know where the puck is.
you dont know what you dont know. walking into hockey for the first time, you may think you should be looking for the puck.
but really, what you want to look for is how the players are moving. it's sort of a "which one is different from all the others." one person will clearly be moving in a completely unique way, as the others chase them or vie to get open or get in somebodys way. to acomplish this identification, youre looking at their legs, shoulders, hands, feet, and heads.
> Imagine if you couldn't see the players, and just saw the puck. Would that be interesting at all?
Honestly, I don't know. Is it really the players people care most about? More than the score? The players come in and out of teams so often that caring about any specific player seems strange. Teams seem more important. I suspect that just seeing colored sticks (with colors signifying the team) and the puck would probably work just as well but then I don't get the appeal of watching sports in the first place.
> ...vertical, shortform video. Not sure how that plays out in terms of advertising...
I have seen a comment about them being terrible for advertising, it looks like a "good" idea but it is not.
The problem is that the attention of people watching these videos drop to almost zero, too much is happening in a too short amount of time, and as a result nothing is remembered, including the ads. It is a very good deal for whoever is monetizing this content, they show a lot of ads, plenty of revenue, but not for those who are paying for the ads. It is like subliminal messages, "good" idea, but not very effective. For ads to work, people need to pay attention.
I don't know how ads in chatbots will turn out and what form it will take, but I think it is inevitable.
It's kinda interesting to see how advertising is evolving. I'll mindlessly scroll Instagram reels once in a while and every other reel is an ad with the sponsored tag, with an obvious thing being sold and advertised. A fair amount of non-"ads" are influencers or celebrities promoting a product on their personal IGs with the #ad.
It's like advertising and social media are slowly merging together.
I couldn't say how effective it is. Who knows how much they paid that influencer and how much revenue it drives. But it sure is common.
They are probably going to make them obvious at first, like with Google search.
But they can also make it more pernicious. For example by having companies pay them so that they can train their AI on their products, with regular updates. Not technically an ad, but the AI will be more aware of their products so that they are more likely to be recommended to the user. In other words, that's paying for the right to advertise to the AI rather than to advertise to consumers directly.
Why would they ever make it obvious? It makes no sense. google just had the luck of political inaction, and eventually enshitified it further to the point where you might not know it was an ad.
For the same reasons why Google did it in the first place.
To not undermine trust into their product and because ads are lower quality than organic results, and by making them indistinguishable, it will make their product worse.
The chatbot market is still competitive, and while users may tolerate ads alongside their answers, they may not tolerate lower quality answers (that is ads disguised as answers). With Google search, they can get away with it because they are still the best even with the enshitification.
There is another reason why it is in their best interest to make it really obvious there are ads. Chatbots want you to pay directly, sometimes hundreds of dollars a month, they are not getting that kind of money with ads, so obnoxious ads are also a way to say "hey look, if you pay, you won't get ads". It doesn't mean ads won't make a comeback in paid tiers later, but not initially.
So, yes, lots of "probably", but my guess would go towards the first ads being obvious and flashy rather than subtle.
but google did erode trust in their product, and the american government went after them, so they "made it more obvious" which still really didnt change that most people dont care if something is sponsored and just look at the first result.
it's something that continually needs to be reenforced again and again. somebody will be made example of.
One rough heuristic I use is people-watching on the subway. Just a quick glance from a distance at their phones. What are they actually looking at? (Yeah I know it's a bit nosy...)
I see: short-form video, WhatsApp/Messaging, YouTube long-format - in that order.
I don't know why people are down-voting it. You might not like it, you may not think it's good. But this is absolutely happening and there's a lot of data out there about it.
how is AI seo different from regular SEO? Behind the LLM is a search function, naturally the same queries and keywords would work for both search and LLMs, no?
It's unnatural to search an LLM for a product. It's why Alexa never became a shopping portal.
Best way to get the word out about a product now is through an influencer in the space.
-- Edit:
Show of hands for anyone using ChatGPT to shop. Be honest.
People don't even use Google to shop. They try to find something either (1) by brand name, eg. "iphone" or (2) generically by category, eg. "best cold weather tent".
In the former case, Google used their enormous, antitrust flaunting power and 90% browser marketshare to turn the URL bar into a competitive trademark bidding dragnet. Apple pays out the nose for the iPhone spot. For every click. And every other major corporation selling to business or consumer does the same. This is the source of Google's enormous wealth. Google is a middle man. You cannot conceivably get to a brand or product without paying the Google tax.
In the latter case, when people try to look up blogs and reviews and Reddit posts to compare products, Google gets in the way and inserts themselves into the flow. If LLMs make this experience even shittier, there won't be upstream content to source as no reward will reach the people providing the value. It will naturally atrophy over time.
As a new sales channel, young people are buying content off of TikTok and Instagram directly now. When they see influencers using products they like, it leads to massive sales volume. New unicorn consumer businesses are being minted regularly from this.
Alexa never became a good shopping portal because voice interfaces regularly mishear you, so there was always a lot of doubt about what it might be ordering, and also has anyone except the obscenely rich ever gone "yes, the first result, that's always fine, no I will not bother looking at any of the prices on any of the results"? Hence the joke about the reason why Amazon bought Whole Foods being that Bezos said one day "Alexa, buy me something from Whole Foods" and Alexa mishearing it as "Buy Whole Foods".
LLMs are not limited to voice interfaces. You absolutely can use ChatGPT as a search engine if you want to: it does give you results you can compare, telling you about pros and cons of various options, and you can discuss with it what your end-goals are and have it turn a vague idea into a shopping list (that may or may not be complete for your project).
I don't have any reason to think these are the best, ChatGPT is not a storefront and OpenAI does not have a long history as a search engine, but it absolutely can be used this way.
Wow - than at least my behavior - and that of quite an impressive amount of non tech people in my circle of acquaintances - are "unnatural".
I know people who took a photo of their car's driver side mirror cap (the thing that is on the opposite of the drivers side mirror and often colored like the rest of the car) - and asked chatGPT to search for the part. Because they were not able to navigate the respective auto parts portals.
I myself had perplexity generate a comparison report for different electric cars in a specific price range to get a first rough understanding of the used eCar market. Including links to respective models in used car sites.
Using Kagi for the few regular searches I need to do nowadays, Claude Code on the commandline for any other extended research/searches, I actually only use Google nowadays when I use the Google song detection function. Like Shazam - I just find this thing to be on my phone, so no need for an additional app.
I could give you a lot of additional examples from acquaintances and family - esp. from the not so tech people. Google is catching up, though. So - I think, with habits being hard to break, most people find Google good enough for quite a long time to come.
> and asked chatGPT to search for the part. Because they were not able to navigate the respective auto parts portals.
I do that, 10 years already, using Google, on a specific website. Website owners are just so very, very bad at making search working. Haven't even tried using ChatGPT for it.
> Show of hands for anyone using ChatGPT to shop. Be honest.
I recently used ChatGPT to compare headphones before buying them, although the workflow there was a bit manual; I took some headphones that I had in mind off a cursory search off Amazon, had ChatGPT produce a summary of the differences and then picked the "best" one.
I'd assume this happens a lot more, I can easily someone doing, produce a list of [product category X] under < $Y, then use follow-up queries, etc.
> As a new sales channel, young people are buying content off of TikTok and Instagram directly now.
I assume this would only work for the things that influencers can directly sell, e.g. selling makeup to women that way is apparently a thing; for other products that are not impulse-buys, ChatGPT is a perfectly reasonable way to shop.
Searching with llms is the single best use case for it.
It is some form of natural language apropos.
Ask it what is the best way to have a beautiful and modern website, Vercel will make money and tailwind will receive a visit and gain one more consuming application.
Ask it how to be safe, rust will gain more power and influence no matter what originally was your intent.
It doesn't need to be justified. Chatgpt said so therefore true (the audience vulnerable to this has established that generative technology==chatgpt)
I used ChatGPT to find a bike for me. It asked good questions, recommended good results, linked me to options and the websites I needed to further research things. I don't do a lot of shopping though so this is one tiny example. If I was looking to actually shop again though I'd use it again. Most of my shopping these days is the grocery store. I don't have a lot of needs.
LLMs are honestly rather amazing for product search and comparison.
Here's a use case for me last week: I'm re-organizing my bathroom sink/vanity, and I want a few counter top organizers to keep things neat and tidy. I have a low mirror, low medicine cabinets, and generally tight spaces to work with and want to maximize storage.
So, I have a 10" wide space and I can't have anything over 16". I want to find a drawer organizer as close to 16" tall without going over, and as close to 10" without going over. Given a choice between the two, I want to bias for more height.
Go to Google or Amazon and try finding that. You're going to be trying permutations of 10x16 and 9x16 and so on, and digging through pages looking for something approximate.
In theory maybe there's some filter options on Amazon that might work, but they're usually incomplete, wrong, or absent. It's a terrible experience even when it's supported.
ChatGPT (or even Amazon's kind of janky Rufus) immediately finds top near-perfect matches for me to choose from. 15-20 minutes of aggravating digging turned into 90s of letting ChatGPT think and search while I was off grabbing a coffee.
> LLMs are honestly rather amazing for product search and comparison.
True, LLMs are quite good in things where I have limited knowledge. It shortens exploration phase considerably. Before, I would need to go to web pages, compare parameters (somewhere), think out why this, not that.
> It's unnatural to search an LLM for a product. It's why Alexa never became a shopping portal.
There is plenty of evidence that people are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for that too. And it's entirely possible that ChatGPT and others are already being trained to mention some products first or to present them in a more positive light.
This is an analogy that is very appealing, which is precisely why I feel it sends the fundamentally wrong message.
There is not one single puck in the web search field, and we actively don't want that situation in the first place (want no monopoly or cartel). There should be at least 2 if not a ton more. Everyone focusing their attention and resource on a single thing is the absolute worst case scenario.
I also hope the future of search is not where every existing player is looking at. That means there is no disruption happening, money straight dictates the winner and nothing truly innovative is expected.
Even "skating where the puck will be" is essentially following someone else's play. It can be fine, but I'd prefer to focus on the person actually acting on the puck, where they're trying to lead the game.
> The tactics were different during the phonebook days (it was having your business start with the letter "A") as opposed to Google and will be different for the next thing as well.
And to add to this, the dark pattern of the time was to register in the Phone Book as “AAA Your Real Business Name” which was exactly what my first job did.
Bang on. It's advertising, so literally looking at where people are getting their info from is the way to go.
Google searches don't produce good results these days. The enshittification has become too extreme. Google openly admits as much (and further intensifies the enshittification) by placing a huge AI summary above those results.
The answer is self evident. If, before, you were relying on clicks resulting from google searches, today you need to be what an AI recommends when somebody uses an AI like they used to use google. (Users will eventually become more sophisticated though!) Lots of people are using AI like a search engine and getting better results than google gives simply because massive resources are currently being put into training AI, while mere neglect is insufficient to explain how fast Google search results are getting worse.
Is this how AI companies plan to cash in? Accept money from advertisers to promote their products in interactions with their LLM's? Were I an advertiser, I'd be trying to get Anthropic to take my money instead of giving it to Google. AI might be what finally makes it impossible to tell content and ads apart. That's great for advertisers... I guess. Not so great for the rest of us.
> Google searches don't produce good results these days. The enshittification has become too extreme. Google openly admits as much (and further intensifies the enshittification) by placing a huge AI summary above those results.
I haven't asked Google a question it has failed to provide a more than adequate answer to in ... months? years?
And on all my devices, I run google search with &udm=14, so I am not talking about AI summaries. I also have search personalization disabled.
I see a lot of people complaining about this on HN. It simply doesn't match my experience at all, in any way.
Maybe because you have the personalization disabled. My complaint isn't the SEO stuff; that hits me when I search on a tech item I want to learn (I get slammed with crappy vendor blogs), or food recipes (long story about a Sicilian Grandma before the recipe at the end). My complaint with Google is it fights me on keywords, and I have to constantly add quotes, add minuses, and it seems to silently override it.
It's easier to add Reddit at the end to get a more accurate question repeated, and skip the sponsored SEO crap.
Google seems relatively good at never giving me SEO crap near the top of most of my search results.
And a list of links to original sources or close to it is precisely what I do want.
If you want an LLM to generate an answer from its training data, that's fine, but go use a different search engine instead of demanding that the one many of us have relied on for decades has to do that.
My experience was quite the opposite, and the reason why I switched to Kagi: any search that was anywhere adjacent to a product would be almost nothing but SEO garbage. Non-product related searches were better, but I also think they had noticeably degraded over the past several years to a decade.
And I actually agree with the last point. While there are entire categories of questions that I now prefer an LLM to to any search engine, when I want a search engine, I specifically do not want LLM summaries, which is another thing I like about Kagi: they allow me to choose when I want to see an LLM summary and to turn off summaries altogether.
(this is really not meant to be an ad for Kagi, I presume that most HN users are familiar with it already and don't need yet another random endorsement, but I honestly don't know how to talk about my experiences with search over the past several years and my dissatisfaction with google without talking about it)
I don't believe I was demanding anything of the sort. If you're happy with Google, enjoy. I am adding my own anecdotal experiences to other's (who appear also to have found search lacking for some time now).
You stated that you did not want a list of links. I am not sure what other alternatives there are, but AFAIK, they will all involve LLMs in some way and be a quite different way to present the results of a "search" than traditional search engines.
Google search sucks and it's sucking worse all the time. Nobody knows what else to use though so people keep using it. The results are mostly spam and AI slop. If a searcher has to search several times to get information they used to get with a single query suddenly the average number of searches per searcher spikes and it looks like growth I guess. Worse, lots of people are trusting the AI results which is bound to lead them astray with lies and eventually be corrupted with ads/paid manipulation. For now though, the results Google returns are also mostly AI generated crap so at least people save themselves a click.
Eventually the solution for this will be you paying the AI company to promote your products or suppress your competitors. Even now, chatbots are a terrible way to get product recommendations. They're trained on way too much ad copy and too many bullshit reviews. As ever, the best thing a company can do to advertise is simply to be excellent at what they do and be very affordable.
The recent Acquired ep on “Alphabet Inc” put it aptly: social media moved into Google’s space, video (reels, “pivot to video”), and social media for socialising moved to message groups, iMessage/Whatsapp/Discord.
Revenue-wise, video ads have always been the sun to print ads peanut m&m.
Look where the pucks going then:
Implication: ChatGPT as a realtime video avatar will hit the jackpot with ads, but not before. Count on the ChatGPT device having a screen for that reason
>
The tactics were different during the phonebook days (it was having your business start with the letter "A") as opposed to Google and will be different for the next thing as well.
<
Interesting! I thought, they did it because of the stock-item-list order :-D
"AI" is the next advertising frontier, no question.
People are throwing themselves to feed you personal data. You no longer have to come up with sneaky ways to collect it, or build out their profile from inferred metadata. Less work for you, more accurate profiling, and less risk getting fined by pesky regulation.
Ad campaigns can be much more personal and targeted. You can push them at just the right moment to optimize the chances of conversion. They can be much more persuasive, since chatbots and assistants are deeply trusted. You can dial the sensitivity knob to make them very subtle, or completely blatant, depending on your urgency and client.
If I as someone outside of this hostile industry can think up these scenarios, the world is not ready for what advertising geniuses are cooking up as we speak.
> the world is not ready for what advertising geniuses are cooking up as we speak.
Advertising directed towards AI models, at the very least. If you can get into ChatGPT's weights that McDonalds is the cheapest and tastiest hamburger, how many millions of people would ChatGPT tell that to?
Personally, if ChatGPT told me the sky was blue, I’d go out and check. But if you’re someone who takes advice from ChatGPT, maybe? It’s not like I don’t ever go to McDonalds.
First you need agriculture so people tend to settle in one place. After ag comes more specialization, farmers need houses, graineries, and as society grows social specialists in which we'd call government.
These things in an area typically cause the area to grow because of their stability. As they grow you get more than one person/business doing the same line of work and you get more people than fit in ones monkeysphere. At that size you may not know a person that knows what you need to know and start looking further. This is why as cities grow advertising itself becomes an emergent property. Just go to a Roman city and look for dick pavers for example. Then someone will think "Hey, I can give some poor kids a board with a message on it and have them cry out to go to the place that people pay me to advertise" and suddenly you have an emergent property of humanity.
I (mis)attributed an element of pre-destination to the word emergent that apparently doesn't map to the word properly used.
That said, there's a petroglyph (circa 1150-1600 CE) of a macaw (among other sign-like petroglyphs)[1] on the walls above the pueblo ruins in Frijoles Canyon in Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico that came to mind when reading your explanation. The pueblo ruins themselves are immediately above an agriculturally developed riverbed floodplain with structures previously used for food storage.
It doesn't seem too far fetched to analogize a macaw above a pueblo in a canyon to, say, a flamingo on a neon sign (Circa 20th century)[2] above a bar along a highway, or an ad on a phone in 2025. Perhaps advertising is emergent (and, dare I say, with an element of pre-destination).
I know this might seem reductive but when you say "look where everyone is looking", the answer hasn't really changed since the 2010s — it's our phones.
(and to some extent, monitors if you account for the amount of time 9-5 people spend on their work laptops or screens. desktop is not dead but that's another matter)
The hot apps are for now, chatbots and vertical shortform platforms. We know advertisers get much better bang for their buck marketing where the influencers are.
Google is "dead" because search advertising is much worse at figuring you out and showing you stuff when you're not necessarily looking for it. But Google can easily advertise where the eyeballs are - your phones.
We must remember that enshittification is an ongoing process and Google has the power to reach billions of people, one shitty update at a time.
From their POV, it definitely feels like a miss that they don't own a successful and dedicated social media platform. Maybe they will make another foray into it.
>Look where everyone is looking and you'll find your answer there. It may not be in the same form as Google adwords, but the game is the same. Leveraging attention.
The chill that ran down my spine when I realized that you and TFA think that the part people care about is Google as an ad platform, and not as a way to access websites.
I actually don't care. Most people don't. We care about the quality of service. Aside from Google employees and shareholders, I assume that most users would prefer a useful service that barely makes the company any money, versus a money-printer that's useless and a PITA to use.
I’d suggest that the title should be, “Competition for Google AdWords is so strong that unsophisticated advertisers can no longer get a good return. Where do I promote my business now?”
As someone who leads large parts of ad tech for TikTok and worked at Google for 10 years, it’s the K shaped economy that is pressing SMBs out. Pure and simple
Everyone can make up some complex theories but I see it in the numbers every day. Spend distribution is now k shaped and SMBs simply can’t compete at top end performance levels.
This seems one of the more important comments here - a K shaped economy (Rich get richer up the rising arm of the K and the rest of us are on the down arm)
dominates everything (ie asset price inflation means if you had assets in 2020 you probably still do else good luck) and this just is one of many ways the playing field has tilted towards the richest.
And it is always a choice - we choose platforms and regulations and spending priorities. If “we” choose a different set of tech regulations the K shaped economy can be put back in its box.
For me the problem was most clearly outlined by Cory Doctorow “developers did not unionise or rebel in time because they thought of themselves as temporarily embarrassed entrepreneurs”.
There is probably an element of truth in that however when I looked at the people who outbid me on keywords half were selling high value products where they had enough margin to make it viable. The other half seemed to be spaffing their money up the wall.
SMBs broadly spend 200-400 dollars a month on ads and see marginal to negative returns against 10 million in spend for large clients. Even 1000-5000 see marginal returns at best unless the target small demo high return (local premium services). They lack the budgets for learning and optimization let alone optimal price per placement.
This combined with SMBs targeting everyday joes with increasing less demand availability for anything it leaves them crushed on both sides.
Wow so 10,000-100,000x spend difference. That is a wide K.
Do you think there’s any hope for SMB? Eg I’ve seen some companies tout AI advertising optimization for SMB but when I looked into one for investment the numbers weren’t very compelling.
What is the proportion of spend of SMBs vs large clients? Would you say that large clients are responsible for most of the advertising revenue? I always assumed that would be something like a 50/50 split, but these numbers made me question that assumption.
It affects everyone. It's always been the case, also in traditional advertising. As soon as a company gets rich it defaults to massive marketing (at a loss) to stay on top and drown the underdogs. That's why I think marketing spend should be capped by revenue by law. The current system stiffles competition
That would make it easy to implement: a simple payment receipt to a journalist who visited a "demo" would be enough to start fining them. Imagine the honesty of the press when it can't get bribed by the oligarchs anymore. Or imagine charities needing to court local producers instead of poison-cola for endorsements. It would be a different world!
Not all companies that have massive budgets only sell to affluent consumers. For example, walmart, amazon, most streaming services, coca-cola, pepsi, mcdonalds, etc.
> Also, In my own experience for my business ( also entertainment) I have found reddit ads to be useful.
Reddit is very hit or miss depending on your target audience.
Depending on your Reddit target audience, a lot of people could have adblock installed. They might be loyal to communities that have approved vendor lists where everyone parrots the same vendor recommendations back and forth in every thread, so not being part of that game means you're left out. In some niches, the subreddit moderators have a financial relationship with vendors and they'll put their weight into swaying every conversation away from competitors.
For other niches, none of this applies and Reddit can be a good ad destination. It really depends
100%. My business is in the smart home space. I peruse various smart home subreddit communities, and they all have a few brands that are aggressively celebrated on Reddit. Market research, financial disclosures, and other public data largely indicates that these brands are not all that popular, especially in the biggest-spend markets.
Thank you. This is a perfect example of clickbait. I trusted the HN crowd, clicked the link, and immediately realized the trap. I'm upset at how effective it is. And also commend the author for publishing an article specifically engineered to waste the viewers time.
In truth, I have never seen a company doing such an insane 180 against it's traditional suppliers as Google is doing against the websites populating its search pages which now Google milks as mere training data. Google Search is dead, from the perspective of the websites, and there is less and less incentive to spend effort and money to appear on the first pages.
Google better have a good strategy because this is bound to have 2nd order effects down the road, like, why would I pay money for advertising on a dead internet search engine? If AI is killing organic results, then AI better make money itself, because dead websites don't buy ads.
It's been some years since I've had to put ads on the web, but I found Reddit ads insanely effective. Really, Google ads have been dead for a long time. I found them hardly effective at all since maybe 2011.
A surgeon in our family got basically all his (private) clients from Google. Spend was multiple k per month. If you consider that one surgery brings in 7k in revenue, then those numbers actually make sense. He's retired now but did this up to 2y ago.
> Really, Google ads have been dead for a long time.
For you perhaps. I work with a huge amount of businesses whose profits are still driven almost entirely by them, who have seen not even a blip and make money hand over fist.
I wish I knew the difference. I’ve ran or been close to tens of businesses over the last 20 years and we’ve always paid the Google tax, but I’m not sure it’s ever had a positive ROI.
I think he's aimed in the right direction with the observation about short videos.
I tried to load his website. It took a full minute to come up. Maybe that's the HN hug of death or something, but this is surely issue #1 to resolve.
Beyond that I would ask whether targeting the "young'uns" directly is the correct strategy. His business is party entertainment, kids' birthday parties could be the biggest slice of that, but the kid isn't the purchasing decisionmaker, and there are all these other opportunities (like corporate events) too.
And then I would consider whether paying for ads in shorts is the right or only way to approach the world of video. The thing about video is it's huge, lucrative, and eating up more of people's time every year. People are moving from the text Internet, to watching videos. I would think given the nature of the business this guy has raw footage which can be turned into entertaining videos, or can produce it pretty quickly. I'm increasingly surprised by how much some people can earn on Youtube, by creating videos that also function as marketing collateral for their business. He will ultimately need to geotarget to get customers, so yeah that's probably paid ads, but a good YouTube channel would build authority, making sales easier to close, and might also make him more money than you'd expect via ad revenue.
My entertainment website typically gets 10-100 visitors per day, yesterday it was more like 1000 per hour. The only reason it's still online is because of CloudFlare CDN!
My content is best live and in person but you are right, will be concentrating more on video content for yt and others going forward
Reddits been building up its user base in India the past few years.[1]
I’m permabanned on Reddit so I only consume via the default not logged in feed and I run into some comments in what I assume is Hindi(might be marathi or one of the multiple other languages on the continent) or posts from subreddits explicitly about some aspect of india
I had a few alt accounts, they were all banned and I wasn’t able to make a new account with existing emails.
I assume, with no evidence, that they just used the same data tracking for ads, to enforce the ban. I think Meta turned on the real banning tech during a panic in Covid iirc
I noticed I was shadow banned on youtube (for comments). I have no idea what was the reason because I rarely comment and am very civil when I do. It doesn’t bother me much though, I was just curious how it happened.
I got a few strikes. They were in one of two main categories
1: my true beliefs
2: directly quoting the president
I laugh at any current supporters of this admin who complain about censorship while this is happening and we’re doing shit like having multiple media companies being sued by the king left and right.
Yes, I agree with you. It’s become quite ridiculous. I expect things will turn for the worse and comments would be used against people in various ways if it’s not already happening, eg. being scanned on social media upon entering the US. Dark times…
It does not follow that people making more searches means people are having more successful searches. If google found the exact thing you were looking for and put it top centre in the results, would the number of human searchers stay the same but the number of human searches drop?
Again, then why are people using Google more than ever?
I don't really see how "dead internet theory" explains that. If it were as bad as you claim, surely usage would be plummeting? But it's just the opposite.
Dead internet theory means real users are declining while bot users are skyrocketing.
For example google search is such a terrible experience these days that I’ll often ask an LLM instead.
That LLM may do multiple google and other searches on my behalf, combine, collate and present me with just the information I am looking for, bypassing the search experience entirely.
This is a fundamentally different use case from human traffic.
> Are you sure it’s _people_ driving this increase?
Most likely - yes. If Google has been dead for years people wouldn't pour hundreds of billions of dollars into ads there. The Search revenue keeps increasing, even since ChatGPT showed up. It might stagnate soon or even decrease a bit - but "death" ? The numbers don't back this up. One blog saying he stops paying for Google ads conflicts with the reality of around 200 billion yearly revenue from Search.
Exactly this. Businesses decide whether to pay for ads based on clickthru rates and conversions. Bots don't click through. They don't convert. If these rates fall, advertisers will pay proportionally less as their max bid, and Search ads revenue will fall substantially.
That hasn't happened. Google continues to grow with real users.
The policy described in my link is literally about making each user search more to get the results they want in order to drive more ad revenue. That would create more searches and a less good user experience.
AI is not and cannot be search. Search is dead and has been for a few years now. Search has seemingly been subsumed into the LLM monster, considering how "fuzzy" queries have become (probably because they're not hitting the search algorithm without being massaged by "something else"). Significant portions of the web have been purged from Google's index, which means that neither Gemini nor Search can present those pages to users.
When people say "search is dead", I feel like you and I live on different planets.
If I have an idea of what I want, Google search works great. On the rare occasion I don't know the specific thing I'm looking for, Gemini points the way.
It had never ever been easier for me to find what I'm looking for on the internet, since 1993-1994.
I do wonder how much browser, location, and language plays into this.
I believed these sorts of statements a few years ago, but not anymore. Results were hit-and-miss enough to give the benefit-of-the-doubt. They're now so bad that I assume bad faith, either on the part of the speaker or Google.
Instead sites adds Gemini integrations, which are targeted based on prompts. When you pay enough, Gemini recommends your shop and AI buys the stuff for the target audience.
Google considers the consumer's side, not just the publishers. Users often don't want to visit someone's website (and then dodge ads and cookie/newsletter/notification popups). If the query can be answered without veer visiting a website, so much the better.
Hm good point but if one were to try to reach visibility via let's say contacting the creators themselves or making reddit showcases themselves?
I am not sure what might work better, sponsorships or Ads. Of course some are definitely icky sponsorships but if one were to align with small youtubers who develop their own things and you enjoy their content and there might be an overlap etc.
I personally have an ad blocker so I don't really know what might work for. I guess organic marketing? But how does one achieve it?
Any good books / ideas on more sustainable forms of marketing aside from paying the large corporations a sort of land tax basically?
Google search ain't dead at all: it became so good something silly like 99% of all the queries have to be answered by the Google AI before the very first "result". And for those who want more, there's the "continue this discussion with Gemini".
Now this may not be great for Google Ads (dunno about that) but Google search now works better than it ever did.
The AI summary is good enough often enough that it's tempting to rely on it. But, at least as of a week or two ago when I finally decided to block it, it still gets things badly wrong. (Sometimes seemingly inexplicably, but often because the results don't obviously contain an answer and yet the LLM is desperate to provide one.)
Remember when people wrote things online because they had something useful to say and share and that was enough?
Now it’s slop factory of people having a writing quota to get enough ads because they don’t want to work. Particularly true for tech writers who praise things like leetcode then can’t get a real job.
Now it’s supercharged by ai and they’re upset how accessible their slop job is. I just find that funny I suppose.
Surprised to see this upvoted because the takeaway is completely incorrect, and based on the anecdotal evidence of one advertiser.
As someone who spends seven figures every month on Google ads, what’s much more likely to be happening here is that the individual advertiser is either getting outcompeted or they’re executing ads poorly.
Google ads revenue in the US continues to grow every quarter. And, since advertisers will generally invest in ads until the last dollar is break even, it’s likely that the total value advertisers unlock through Google ads is growing as well. Whether that’s true or not, the notion that value generated for advertisers is “dead” is absurd.
I just Googled "kids magic show in Durban" and his ad showed up in the top slot (sorry if this post has swamped your ad bill); and as a bonus, the Gemini AI blurb also touted him: "For kids' magic shows in Durban, look for local entertainers like Big Top Entertainment..."
Doesn't seem like the issue is he's being outbid by international conglomerates with million dollar budgets. Maybe the kids magic show market has cooled in South Africa? Or users have left Google? Curious what we are to conclude here.
Google ads are very time & location dependent, the fact that it's showing to you might be a bad sign since you are most likely not close to Durban and this seems like an ad you only want to run locally.
Yes our ads were geo-fenced when I had them on. We have always had a good web presence, I think the conclusion is that nobody looks for services on Google, and our reliance on it above other channels is now no longer viable
Everybody looks on Google for services; or ChatGPT googles/bings it for them. Still the same.
We had a 10x jump just last month for my own company.
For bigger company I consult with we had stable revenue last 2 years even though search traffic declined by 50%, our Google ads still perform the same. In general buying intent still seem to come through Google, only 10% via GPT.
It will become more and more, but a full drop in 3 months means something else is wrong.
Your experience is 100% compatible with the linked article: the seven-figure spender is presumably running a much higher margin business and can scale narrowly profitable ads much more effectively. The natural equilibrium for a perfect ad market is for the ad spend to be exactly equal to increase in revenue: a perfectly efficient market with no profit for the advertiser. Google (and Meta et al) are so good that for many SMBs they are completely cornered at the zero-point: spend as much as you can just to stay in the same place financially.
> The natural equilibrium for a perfect ad market is for the ad spend to be exactly equal to increase in revenue
Not quite, the equilibrium is when marginal ad spend results in no change to profit. The ad spend at equilibrium should result in increased profit compared to no ad spend.
I run a small software business and I know various other people who run small software businesses. We are all pretty much agreed that that Google Ads have been less and less profitable, year or year. Most of us have now given up on PPC ads.
And equally I know many people running non software businesses whose experience is the complete opposite of yours and Google ads has and continues to drive the majority of their revenue.
I expected them to start seeing a hit or significant decline by now, and even told them as such but in what I honestly find surprising, it’s not come to pass.
I've run Google PPC on-and-off for 20+ years. It's definitely way harder to make money with them now, and the complexity is now through the roof, which makes it way harder for a novice to optimize their campaign. I steer small businesses away because it's too easy to screw up and lose your shirt on PPC without professional help.
I spend a small amount on Adwords and that is pretty much it. I gave up on Bing PPC. Facebook Ads aren't suitable for my market. Linked Ads ar too expensive. I tried Reddit Ads, but that was a disaster. See also:
What about sites like bitsdujour? I get an email with deals from them every so often (that I subscribe to) and have spent money on licenses after finding software that I liked.
The question is, why has this post been massively upvoted?
It contains zero useful information. Just somebody struggling with AdWords and they don't know why. Not helpful.
I have to assume the vast majority of upvotes are based on the title alone, assuming it's about Search? A large proportion of top level comments are about Search too. Depressing.
Massively? I can't know. I read the article and upvoted 1) because it suggests a rocky road ahead for Google and 2) because, as you may have guessed, I dislike ads, dislike Google's complicity in ads, and so am happy to discuss.
I happen to in fact think we have reached an inflection point. Whether "Google is dead" depends probably a good deal on where they go now.
I am fairly confident that the answer is that most people vote based on the title/headline without ever clicking through. I am likely guilty of this as well sometimes. It takes discipline to avoid this behaviour.
> We find that most users do not read the article that they vote on, and that, in total, 73% of posts were rated (i.e., upvoted or downvoted) without first viewing the content. [0]
In this case, my guess is that people are noticing less and less utility from Google search, and that was why they voted like they did.
This same phenomenon is what gives newspaper editors far more power than the journalists, as it is the editors who not only decide the stories to be covered, but even more importantly, they decide the headline. Most people just scan the headlines while subconsciously looking for confirmation of their own biases.
I tried to find that paper via google search first, and I failed after 3 different searches. I then opened my not-important-stuff LLM, chatgpt.com, and found it in 3 interactions, where in the 3rd I made it use search. Chatbots with search are just so good at "on the tip of my tongue" type things.
Google is in such a weird position because of their bread and butter legacy UX * scale. This has to be the biggest case of innovators dilemma of all time?
Google.com has "AI mode," and it tries to intelligently decide when to suggest that based on a search query. I could have likely clicke AI Mode on google.com once it gave me a crap SERP response, and used that to find the same thing. But, I instinctively just went to chatgpt.com instead. I am not a total moron, I use gemini, claude, and gpt APIs in the 2 LLM enabled products that I am working on...
However, just last week I noticed that the AI mode default reply for some queries was giving me just horrible AI mode replies. Like gpt-3.5 quality wrong assumptions. For the first time I saw google.com as the worst option. I cannot be the only one.
I think that I might understand the problem. Google has the tech, but as a public company they cannot start to lose money on every search query, right? The quarterly would look bad, bonuses would go down. Same reason ULA can't build Starship, even if they could and wanted to. However, OpenAI can lose money on every query. SOTA inference is not cheap.
Basically any online shop with decent volume / revenue is going to be spending 100s of thousands if not millions of dollars a month on Google ads. (Not just Google Ads, also Facebook ads etc.)
It used to be possible to get by with "organic" search traffic and some SEO... but google search looked completely different back then. Now when you look for something it's an AI box, products (google merchant) ad box, ad (promoted results) box, ... then there's a couple of (like two) results that are "organic" (whatever that means these days) and that's it. And we all know that when you want to hide something, you put it on the second page of google search results. So the space for doing online business "ad free" has been squeezed out over time.
And the K shaped economy is totally true in this ecomm space. These days say 15% of your revenue gets eaten by ads, but you also have say 50% higher revenue overall. At some point it becomes a margin game and the bigger players will start squeezing out the smaller ones because the biggers ones can operate on tighter margins (making up the difference with volume) which the smaller ones simply can't afford. The difference in operating costs of an eshop that sells 10000 items a month is not that different than that of an eshop selling 100000 items a month (i.e. not 10x, more like 2-3x). But selling 10x items gives you the volume you need to be able to lower your margins and put the difference into ads.
BTW all of this is handled by professional online marketing people with increasingly widespread use of AI so there's no room for the small players to make it big while not being optimized to the gills. This is why most small advertisers are seeing small or negative returns while Google and Meta are making tens if not hundreds of billions in ad revenue... The ads work, but the amounts you need to spend and the optimization level you need to have is in a completely different galaxy than it was 10 years ago.
> As someone who spends seven figures every month on Google ads, what’s much more likely to be happening here is that the individual advertiser is either getting outcompeted or they’re executing ads poorly.
Outcompeted by who??? He's a performer offering local entertainment. I highly doubt that people searching for "entertainer in durban" are getting ads for Cirque du Soleile.
His ad is probably on the first page for that search term; the problem is more likely that no one is looking at that first page anymore.
> Surprised to see this upvoted because the takeaway is completely incorrect
It's the standard actually. Hot takes get more votes and hot takes are usually wrong. Experts have non-controversial opinions, which are boring (so no impulse to upvote), and there are 1000x more non-experts with blogs. Add to that HN culture which values contrarian-ness. So HN front page blog posts are almost entirely incorrect, but spicy
I love knocking on Google, and have been doing so for longer than it was cool, but this sounds more like the business is no longer attractive than Google having become suddenly wildly ineffective.
My anecdotal evidence is the smarter normies are increasingly allergic to screens. They only use them to watch stuff they hear about by some other means, but parents, for example, look for any excuse to keep their kids off the Internet, and largely they're better for it.
If you've been around longer than internet advertising you realize the basics of demand have changed pretty considerably.
Let's go back to 1980 and say that you have widget X that person A would absolutely buy if they saw/heard it advertised. They live in Podunk Minnesota that had coverage by 3 radio stations, 3 TV stations, and 2 newspapers. But you have no idea what media they actually consumed to target the right one.
Right now you're at the point you would have to contact at least 8 different media companies for ad spend if you wanted coverage. Most likely you'd cut it down to one of each, and maybe a billboard. This said, the cost for just this little area is going to be wildly expensive! Ads were huge money, and this is just for one little town.
These costs were slightly lower for large corporate buyers, but not that much because as you go back farther and farther you were typically dealing with more companies before consolidation. Being an SMB was great in this market in a local area because you weren't competing with the world.
Fast forward to now and you compete with the entire world at any given moment. In the West we've forgotten about competition and allowed a huge portion of our economic product to consolidate to a small number of companies. This is very apparent in advertising as the old media entities are dead or far more expensive than you'll ever recoup with the competition out there. Instead you're looking at Google/Reddit/Facebook style ads, but with that kind of ad you again, complete with the entire world. If your ad actually does good and drive business, then Google metrics will feedback to players watching the market and they will advertise products in the same space driving up competition and the base costs for ads. The supply from your competitors is practically unlimited which will drive your profits to almost zero unless you happen to have something very special.
Welcome to the K shaped economy, where the big get bigger and the small die.
Glad to see I'm not the one that sees the similarity in "zapping" or channel surfing to what people do nowadays with those shorts...
I remember my brother loving to do channel surfing in the 80s when we were young. I've always hated it! maybe that's why I cannot stand the current Tiktok media format (so sad that Youtube is pushing more and more the same format).
Also, remember when telephones started and people who took vertical video where seen as sinners? How times change!
I still consider them as inconsiderate. You can watch a horizontal video on every screen with more, or equal detail. That's not true for vertical videos.
But at least, we could experience first hand that laziness beats thoughtfulness, when people are allowed to.
Direct propaganda? Not too much. However, the amount of content in the 1980s and 1990s that was in some way funded by the DOD was a bit crazy. Likewise, stuff like NED funded content. If one considers corporations part of the state, then the percentage of content that was propaganda would likely be more than 40%.
Today, this would be harder to figure. Because anyone can use a VPN and pose as a person in any country, any country’s intelligence people could be carrying out misinformation/disinformation campaigns at any time. How much of the left or right content on FB that mom is reading is from genuine actors vs intelligence actors? How many calls for violent action on the left and right are just FBI entrapment or Russian attempts to destabilize the USA?
When all of this was being built, this angle never occurred to me. It should have, but it didn’t. I naively thought, as so many did, that the ability of people to connect across national boundaries, across racial and gender lines, and across socio-economic divides would lead to a better, safer, and happier world. Sadly, I was completely mistaken. The internet became worse than life AFK on those fronts, people joined echo chambers, and radicalism increased.
The trick is you hold the controller in your limp hands, with your fingertip resting on one of the channel buttons. Usually the plus. So when you want to swipe you just extend your index finger just a fraction of an inch. And the screen changes. They dialed in the interface over years, and have gotten it to a process with almost no work involved.
Nearly same thing but instead of smacking the screen you'd actually press the physical button on remote control and run in circles with channel's list to find anything remotely interesting.
It's what Americans call non free to air television. You're probably being downvoted because it's intrensic there and they assume you must know about it.
It is indeed intrinsic here in America. Pretty much all houses that have been occupied in the last 50 years have at least one coax cable coming out of a wall jack or a corner of the floor. MoCA adapters allow for a nice home networking backbone in a house like that.
The way people get information online is changing rapidly.
I run a local makerspace. It is not quite the same thing as a local entertainment business, but there are certainly some similarities. We are local, and we are very event-based.
For the last 10 years, the way we would get new members was to host Meetups. Meetups are slowly bringing in fewer members. When I ask tour guests how they found out about us, they recently started saying that they found us on ChatGPT. They did not know what a makerspace was but they explained their problem and ChatGPT presented our space as a local solution. This has been good for us because we offer something useful to the community but struggle to explain it. In the old days of search, this was a problem because many people were not using the correct phrase to describe what we are. That doesn’t matter anymore.
How does a local business optimize for this though? I am not sure.
One of two ways. Yes, by scraping, even it it requires users to 'sell' their own browsing data to the AI companies because places like Discord lock them out.
Or, the other way is for particular event organizers to pay directly for their services to be advertised/incorporated into the LLM itself. Those that don't pay get more and more of their data erased from the LLM maybe?
Business directory for most of the telephone era was simply known as "the yellow pages". About once a quarter we get a color mailer with all the local plumbers, fencing companies, electricians etc. for homeowners who want a company that is actually licensed and insured.
Are you using "Meetups" to mean Meetup.com or just events in general? Meetup.com has completely gone to shit. Trying to find an event is super frustrating. They show the same events over and over. They don't enforce categorization. People mark online only events as in person and the platform doesn't care. They also started trying to charge users (people looking to attend events) instead of only planners (people hosting events) so it drives people away.
Sadly I don't know any better platform but it seems ripe for a new entry.
There is a meetup-like platform called Spontacts here in Germany. I suspect that for the moment it is only available for meetups in Germany, but who knows, maybe it'll expand internationally if it's successful.
What’s super depressing about Meetup.com are those Modal popups that want you to sign up for Pro. You can’t dismiss them. It’s like they’re intentionally destroying their product to squeeze the last remaining dollars from their users, which I assume are becoming fewer and fewer.
Push advertising sucks, but we can make pull much better by giving the user more control.
Imagine a protocol to publish commercial offers for any given fragment of content addressable by URI. It would describe the details of some product or service and a set of proposed terms. We could surf the web looking for relevant content and publishing related offers. Various repositories would subscribe or not.
A browser (extension or native) would optionally pull offers from selected repositories and have UI for the user to solicit/pull offers for any given piece of content styled to signal their existence, and to filter and sort them. To make it sustainable there needs to be revenue sharing with the content source(s).
Are there existing projects like this?
The same protocol could be used for independent commentary and other annotation.
The Brave/BAT experiment was similar to what you're describing. I think it failed to live up to its dreams of revolutionizing advertising because for the most part there are two kinds of people.
- I try not to think about ads
- I think about ads because I aggressively block them
I'm sure somebody out there represents a middle ground, but I think it's a pretty small demographic.
As others said, most users don't care or don't want to see them.
This leaves the people that care being the ones who are providing the ads, and they will game the system with bots and other methods of bad acting that will make the system useless.
I hate ads until I need them, then I complain that the algorithms still suck. My wife recently reminded me I have to give Shopee time to surface good options when I don't have the exact words. I expect this to improve as their models improve.
I'm glad as hell not to run a business and never plan to, but it's interesting to think as a consumer where I would try to get information like this. Guy's running a service that provides in-person entertainment for events and parties, seemingly things like clowns and magicians, maybe small-time bands or what-not.
Seemingly you don't want to target children directly. If they ask their parents for specific entertainment at a party, they're going to ask for entertainers they know, not companies acting as brokers and middlemen. They might want a particular clown (but probably not) but will never want a particular local vendor of clowns. You need to target the parents for that. If it were me doing the buying, I'd probably prioritize word of mouth recommendations if anyone had such, and otherwise for a large enough event like a wedding or graduation party, I'd look to professional planners. Assuming that's any kind of widespread pattern, you'd want to target strong relationships with planners rather than trying to advertise directly to consumers.
Did people really ever search Google to find party entertainment, and then ignore the search results and use the ads instead? Let alone Tik Tok videos? I guess I'm out of touch enough that the answer can be yes and I'm just that clueless about how small businesses work, but all the comments talking about LLM chatbot services are tripping me out. Y'all would ask ChatGPT who to hire for your kid's party?
I think Google’s search and ad business are at risk. Search has become such a mess that it’s become harder and harder to use to find quality results. It reminds me of Yahoo before Google in a way.
I’m using ChatCPT or equivalent for 60% of my searches. The remaining 40% is just muscle memory. Of that 40% about half the time I regret using Google search due to the difficulty of finding the relevant result.
I can see search users moving to ChatGPT or such and Googles Ad business suffering as a result and a general downward spiral of Google search.
You don't think putting ads in Gemini output has crossed Google's mind?
I've never understood the "AI is eating search! Google is dead!" theory. The specific mechanism (whether that be keyword search, LLM conversation or something else) by which users describe their needs to a company doesn't matter, all that matters is that (a) the company makes that mechanism available for free, (b) it does a good job of satisfying the user's need and (c) ads can be smuggled into it.
Why do you assume I don’t think that? Of course it will happen at some stage. But my comment wasn’t addressing the future, but now. Effectively ChatGPT is buying market share by not having ads; that’s clear. What’s not clear is whether there’s a more innovative model than inserting low-quality, mostly irrelevant ads into the body of the chat they way Google and YouTube do it today. In a Chat agent, advertising also will be an issue for credibility of results. So I think the ad model as we know it will need to change.
This is a temporary situation. Think of it like how Napster let you download any song for free for a few years. For a while, all you heard was how the Internet was going to put all musicians out of business. Obviously that didn't happen.
The same will happen here. It's not like OpenAI has built a search engine; every time they need a live search they hit Bing (please correct me if I'm wrong) and get the results from there. No matter how you slice it, search companies who actually supply the data are going to get reimbursed, and since most users don't pay $20 / month, that likely means ads everywhere.
Also, Google's AI overviews are getting very good. Initially it was pretty inaccurate, but now it's basically 95% as good as ChatGPT, and faster. Most normies I talk to think it's good enough.
I sometimes think people really don't understand the value-add of AI (and I say this as someone on the less hyperbolic end of the "AI-hype" spectrum). If your service to me can be accomplished by AI "very fast"... I don't need you anymore. AI provides a generic problem solving interface where non-experts can leverage the power of the AI to solve a task they previously couldn't have so long as they can describe it well.
I've had multiple cases at work or other places where I've been presented with something as the stakeholder and been told "I used AI to make this!" Great! Next time I'll use AI to make it and save myself the overhead/cost of having work with someone else. I don't see a lot of value in explaining a problem to you so that you can then re-explain it to an LLM.
When people show me they've used AI to complete a task I used to have to do I'm delighted, and, more often then not, proven my value when they come back weeks later asking for help untangling the mess they've made. But, I'm equally delighted in the cases where they are successful using AI to replace things I used to be tasked with. Despite the AI hype, I find myself busier than ever.
CF is exposes my own hypocrisy more than any other company. I am always the first person to say that humans shouldn’t be centralizing so much into so few hands, but then… I use CloudFlare, I recommend it to others, and the company has a fairly decent track record.
It wasn't really AI. Fundamentally, building a website the "traditional" way (hosting agreement, apache install, your favorite way to convert data formats that don't hate you into HTML, CSS, and JavaScript) was always a learned and quite technical skill; most people weren't doing it for fun, they were doing it because it was the only way to be on the web.
What killed the open web was Facebook, Twitter, and their ilk replacing that whole mess with social media profiles, networking connections, and templated, pre-fabricated organization home pages. When social networks became dominant enough that businesses could use it to get their info out there without having to author a webpage, the balance tipped (at least for business-motivated web content).
Business momentum goes a long way, especially with Google being near monopoly status in their advertising. If you're flying at 50,000 feet and the engines fall off the plane it may be a long time before you the customer feel the impact. We can only guess Google is in a panic trying to figure out how they'll make their numbers next quarter and looking for something else to enshittify to increase profits in the meantime.
- Build FAQ section (LLM can help write a lot of it, if you let it load the content of your site)
- Write news on your site (LLM can help you to find ideas what to write about)
There are other networks as well: X, Meta, YouTube, LinkedIn, Amazon ads. It depends what’s your target group. But all networks have targeting tools so you can test them with minimum budget just to see what works and what doesn’t.
For sure, you have some personalized landing pages with CTA (Posthog script included so you can see what works).
good riddance seriously i used to pay like $1~2 a click back in 2010s and remember feeling like a total scam. no way of knowing if those clicks were bots and any campaigns would always have inflation somehow even long tail words that shouldn't.
AI should equal the playing field and promote businesses based on merit and capacity not how much they can spend.
I will say I have no experience in the ad space, but surely the SEO/ad companies will figure out how to game LLMs to make their sites more likely to be picked up by it, no? Or OpenAI would just directly sell ads themselves.
Yes - we're in what I like to call the Socialist Phase of AI (user acquisition). We were once in this phase with Google. Eventually we'll move into the as-yet-unnamed-by-me phase that Google (and search in General, also the internet) have been in for quite some time, where they try and squeeze out all the money that they put in during the Socialist Phase.
The classic pairing is explore/exploit - where you allocate resources towards serendipity in the former, and lock down into only doing the profitable thing in the second.
I don't even think this golden age actually exists today. Aask Google AI mode for the best product in some category - say, the best kitchen range - and it cites... a bunch of spammy "review" websites and a YouTube video.
If you're shopping around, an LLM you control can work for stuff like summarizing customer reviews or compiling a list of products with specific features (if you don't mind them being randomly wrong). But for general shopping advice / "plan my vacation" kind of queries, it's already firmly in the land of SEO-garbage-in-SEO-garbage-out.
they won't be in a separate panel you can ignore, either
the product promotion text will be integrated into the responses
'your prompt is insightful and refreshing. reminds me of the refreshing taste of organic coconut-cinnamon water. here's a QR code coupon for $1 off a 48-ct pack you can use at your local HoleFoods.'
"Fantastic! It's great that you care about what you should feed your children. A bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch is a great way to start your kids' day with the energy they need, and it's something they're sure to love! It's also fortified with vitamins to give them the nutrition they need! If you don't have any, I can start a DoorDash order right now."
Or "It's great that you want to find a way to earn some extra money for holiday presents for your family when you don't have anything left over after paying your bills. You're so thoughtful. You're an avid sports fan, so you've got the knowledge to have an edge in sports betting. DraftKings has a $10 credit when you bet your first $15 on tomorrow's game. You're automatically a winner!"
One mustn't forget that propagandists are frequently just straight malicious.
They want to get there (embedded ads that look like content), but right now it's not so easy - how can they confirm to the advertiser that the ad was seen? What are they gonna do? Put in a 700-character long link in the conversation?
I'm pretty certain that the ChatAI providers want to show ads, but until they can bill for it, they aren't going to.
At some point the billing will work, and then they will.
My point is more that thinking advertisement is simply "here's a coupon buy this thing" is naive. The more pernicious flavor is "this thing that everyone knows hurts you (but makes us money) isn't that bad. In fact it's good! You should do it!" That flavor is pervasive to such a degree that people don't even register it.
I would be that Openai and Google will find a way to boost the embedded ad in the llm result to you based on an auction on how valuable you and your query are
> AI should equal the playing field and promote businesses based on merit and capacity not how much they can spend.
Wasn't that pretty much also the promise of Google as a search engine originally? For the longest time Google actively fought SEO, while running a minimal set of ads, then they bought DoubleClick and everything went to to shit.
AI should equal the playing field, but it won't. The current generation have our bias built in and it's not in a good place financially. It's only a matter of time because it becomes infested with ads. You think OpenAI aren't going to promote shitty products or companies, because the algorithm says they shouldn't? No, they might charge that customer more, but they aren't saying no.
This is a multi facet problem. There's a generation of advertisers who believe that advertising is clicking around in the AdWords interface, maybe sprinkle in a little ad spend on Meta and boom, you're done. The reality is that they can't advertising anything, they don't have the skills required to sell a product.
If they can't rely on Google, where can they go? Social media, AI? Nope, because many of us have been burnt by the major online platforms and won't trust any of them. I'm never signing up for another social media platform, hell, I'm reluctant to sign up for ANYTHING. The current generation of marketing has sacrificed the future for a quick profit now. Many aren't on social media, we use adblockers, we pay for services to ensure no ads, we don't watch TV, newspapers are dead, we don't go out much, so where are you going to advertise exactly? Even if you find a venue, many see so few ads that your attempt at marketing is going to feel like an assault, because you're so desperate that you don't dare tone it down enough.
Advertisement needs to reinvent itself, and it needs to stop funding the entire online services industry, because it can't, not without cannibalizing its own future.
Most people now conduct searches through AI chat. We never trusted Google with our search terms, IP address linked to WiFi and cell towers surveys with Google trucks for cross referencing on Google map, browser fingerprinting, time of day pattern detection, mouse reaction time measurement for age estimation, cross referencing with economic profiling of neighbourhoods, income bracket estimation algorithms, interest profiling based on search terms, browsing breadcrumbs, social network tracking, etc. Now imagine the new powers of AI chat adding reasoning patterns, deep thinking and complete trust to the equation. Let us organise a disconnect day where you turn off your phone and Internet router and ISP box just to confuse the algorithms! Where do we go from here? We stay home and invite disconnected friends for a rare moment of statistically insignificant privacy.
Might this not also be the fact that given the cost of living the world over, being able to afford a fancy party with entertainment like the poster provides is a luxury few can afford now?
We used to eat out a lot more (Saturday lunch at a cafe I mean) and also used to get HelloFresh and other such services, but as the cost of them has gone up way faster than our salaries, we've had to reign them all back.
I agree with the "Google is dying" sentiment for sure, but I also wonder how much is just being unable to afford nice things anymore.
Googles ad business is riddled with fraud in all levels.
Google profits directly from the fraud. It has no incentive to reduce it and is embarrassed by its extent.
Google is essentially overseeing a huge criminal enterprise which funds its other activities. It’s been well documented for over a decade and no one seems to care.
The traffic is faked, the publishers are faked, the clicks are faked and the ad rates are manipulated.
It’s an incredibly lucrative way to steal money with extremely low
risk and trivial penalties. The victims are the advertisers. Google has no interest in rocking the boat while they get paid.
The effective ads via Google platforms are like the percentage of real drugs in what’s bought off the street. Coincidental and ever being shaved.
Can confirm this with YouTube advertising. When enabled for growth, it's nothing but bot farms. When I reached out to Google about it, they acknowledged the unusual traffic but did nothing about it. They are running a huge fraudulent business.
It’ not Google that’s dead. It’s the economy in North American markets. I am finding conversion way down, clicks and impressions I’m still getting. People are just being way more fussy before handing over cash.
Everyone i talk to is quoting the same time line, this started in September and it hasn’t returned to normal.
Please go anywhere but the platforms I use. Go fill Tiktok up with ads. Any of the "mainstream" platforms inbuilt ad posts are a good bet. Or a marketing agency that will disguse it as organic content.
Lol wish I could afford to "fill up Tiktok with ads"! Seriously though, I always felt like Google AdWords (we only used the search network) are the most honest way. Someone searches for what you offer and they see your ad. With these other platforms it's more about relying on the algorithm.
Google ads are the cheapest yes, but depending on your audience they may not be looking on Google now.
For ChatGPT (and similar) you need to have a strong FAQ page and lots of content marketing to increase the likelihood of being the suggested answer when a user asks ChatGPT a relevant question (it's a highly probabilistic system, look up AEO/GEO).
CloudFlare for example offers an option to block AI scraping bots by default. If you are in the services business, this is the opposite of what you want because having AI crawlers scrape your site would drive traffic down the road when users ask a related question.
I would also suggest having accounts with major chatbot companies and enabling the "allow training on my conversations" option and then talk to it about your services. Ultimately you just want to get your brand into the training data corpus, and the rest is just basic machine learning statistics.
Facebook ads were the cheapest for me ten years ago.
We were marketing a product that many people were happy to know existed. The dashboard gave us tools to really delve into demographics. Of all the ridiculous personal data Facebook collected, the best demographic filter was allowing me to narrow in on pages someone liked or interacted with. We were selling things related to cruising sailboats, and we could target an audience within 30 miles of Fort Lauderdale who also liked Sailing Magazine. Moreover, we could use a pixel so that only people who had also visited our website saw the ads.
Facebook had a policy of rewarding high-quality ad content. If people clicked the ad, or better yet left positive comments and discussion or shared, the price drastically decreased to fractions of a cent per impression and click-through. We were able to get ads shared a lot with people tagging other people about the product suggesting they might be interested in it. That was the holy grail for copy that we always strived for.
Of course, they got rid of all that. But at the time, it was a great way to target an audience based on third-party pages they liked, giving them ad content about products they were generally interested in—and products they were happy to know they could purchase because they had value.
Ads configuration is like gambling in Las Vegas, in that the easier the game, the worse the odds—like slot machines—and the more the player has to interact, like Blackjack, the better the payout. When done well with good configuration, we were getting 1000s of click-throughs for dollars. It was amazing.
The point is that Facebook rewarded ads that people positively interacted with, as it meant the quality of the news feed wasn't hurt by the ad.
There was a time when ads benefitted everyone, the buyer, the seller, and Facebook.
>when ads benefitted everyone, the buyer, the seller, and Facebook
As others have stated in this thread, it's called the acquisition phase. Get people hooked, build the network, make it be the place that people have to be at.
After that comes the exploit phase where said network effects make it hard to leave. You can rake in billions (trillion?) of dollars this way. Who cares if it eventually kills the company, you've made more money than god at this point.
Google Search Ads are usually the most expensive on a CPC basis out of the big platforms, but usually the CPA is much lower (even though Bing Ads can often be better value). This is usually because of 2 reasons:
1. You can target a specific part of the funnel (informational -> purchase intent) in search ads. Targeting on social networks is more about overall user profiles rather than their immediate state of mind.
2. People going to a search engine expect to leave that search engine to go to another website. Whereas people on a social network expect to stay in that portal. So clicking on an ad then doing something after is a more natural flow (and better value for advertisers).
NO that's a side project - my product is my juggling/magic shows here in Durban (also good for video though). I made the poi for myself and open sourced it, now people are selling them in Brazil, and Australia. Sometimes I get a bit of cash from it but not a lot.
I see. Not sure if TikTok is the best plattform then as you want a very local audience (but I never used TikTok, just watched family members do).
I rather would try to get an entry on google maps. Meaning when people browse the area, they see your thing. I certainly like to discover new stuff like this in new areas and some things I find are clearly there because of ads, but other got there by other ways. Making a entry by hand, publishing a picture there with further info ..
We are on Google Maps. Many 5* ratings (apart from that one psycho neighbour who objected to me asking him to turn his base down - they left one night without paying their rent and a week later my business has 1* review. urrgh 10 years and I'm still annoyed)
Instagram has apparently got hyper specific location targeting, so we are doing an ad on there now.
Ok here's an idea, you find leads of houses in your area with a kid whose birthday is coming up and send them flyers. You're a dev guy this should be up your alley. $1 each with Postgrid API or do it yourself and it's the cost of your time + stamps + papercuts. Where do you get those leads do you ask? That's actually a good question and I'll need to get back to you on that. Make sure to put a QR code on the flyers.
Its not specific on him Ads just drive me insane. I haven't really formed enough strong reasoning(to me) to say they shouldn't exist. So I'm at a halfway point of "advertise somewhere that isnt in front of me".
The platforms I use are very NOT local so it'd be pointless. Mainstream platforms are invasive with their data collection that would allow his ads to be specifically targeted and do well there, getting put in front of people who might actual use his service.
Yes but it's possible that the marketing channel is very profitable before drying out. Also the less a channel is known the more it will take to reach saturation.
So there might be channels that are very profitable and well hidden, the problem is that by definition it might be too hard/expensive to find them.
I can't find it, but there's a good graph that shows Google search decline in share to GPT, but it excludes Gemini. With Gemini, it stays relatively on par. That's pretty much the answer with where one goes. LLMs are higher intent than search could ever be, and they are closer to you selling to yourself than a store selling to you since they have all of your user context
If you believe markets to be a future discounting mechanism, then they're sure as hell saying Google "figured something out" in the last year, even vs OpenAI [1]
Just trying to find out what this guy actually does is hard. It’s a page of links linking to another page of links, repeat. Where is the thing? The content? The product? It just feels a bit disconnected from patterns users expect and delivery mechanisms users are comfortable with in 2025. It’s almost a 1995 style pastiche of intent with no payoff.
?? There is one link that takes you to his business. It’s kids parties (birthdays, etc) entertainment (Or corporate events). Think performers doing magic acts, juggling, comedy, balloons, etc. it really wasn’t that difficult to find out.
You must be referring to my personal Blog and Tutorial Site. It's messy, and serves no purpose other than to talk about whatever I am interested in at the time. Sometimes other people are also interested. And it's 14 years old now, so yeah.
If you need a payoff, click the Patreon link banner on top and go support development of my Open Source LED Poi!
You mean the physical world where businesses are signing up with companies to put AI enabled cameras all over their properties and sell your data? Why not some nice dynamic pricing on their digital price bars next (oops, we are already there).
Oh no, adtech is dying. I guess we'll all have to compete through quality of products and services and not gaming a rigged system designed to reward anything that maximizes the profit of the global surveillance adtech machine.
This gives me warm fuzzy feelings. It's nowhere near good, but this is better than it was.
I wish that were true, but I don't think it's dying, I think it's metastasizing.
Ads will ingress deeper into what were trusted layers -- embedded in text and video in a seemingly organic way. GenAI tools make this possible -- to splice a 20 second mention of something into a stream, or rewrite a paragraph injecting a subtle product placement.
We will develop new mental antibodies for this, we always do. Silver lining of sorts -- while short-form video content is making people illiterate, perhaps literacy will become a calm refuge once again.
> to splice a 20 second mention of something into a stream
I'm seeing the start of this already, AFAICT. There have been a couple of YouTube videos with embedded ads that YouTube flipped over to a YouTube ad at exactly the point the sponsor part started.
Google is almost certainly getting ready to use AI to splice out in stream ads and replace them with Google ads.
The biggest problem is platform scale, imo - platforms grow so big as to make the network effects confer an invulnerability to regulation or moderation, and then get exploited to squash competition, either through legal action, acquisition, suppression, or sometimes simple inertia. Ubiquitous reach and total control over the platform made it irresistible to bad faith operators, politicians, activists, and rent-seekers. AI has a good shot at completely fragmenting those technologies at a fundamental level.
We should be resisting any ad injection into ChatGPT, Claude, etc maintaining a firewall between what's acceptable in a paid product and what's not, and as long as open source Chinese models roughly keep parity, the big US labs can't pivot hard into exploiting users for ad revenues. Private hosting and bots are almost as good as ChatGPT with UI and UX, within a few percentage points as good in capabilities, and the pressure to go elsewhere is minimal. If they drive off a whole lot of independence minded users, they risk creating a community of people who'll create a very slick, workable alternative, while paying only a tenth or less what the frontier labs charge. As long as that dynamic cripples the efforts of big labs to enshittify, there's a good shot that the entire ecosystem fundamentally evolves to something better. I hope, anyway - it could just explode into a grotesque mess of user exploitation and yet more of the same.
I think at some point you'll be able to have good-enough AI on your phone to carry everywhere you go, and it'll do all the ad filtering and opsec and digital hygiene for you - everyone will have a high quality competent tech nerd in their pocket looking out for their best interests, and it won't just be a niche rebel nerd thing anymore.
>good-enough AI on your phone to carry everywhere you go
Eh, if Google/Apple allows you to put it on your phone, which is highly doubtful at this point. Google would outright directly ban that kind of competition in the name of security. Apple would just ban an AI like that in the name of security even though it doesn't actually compete with them.
I love your vibe but unfortunately I don't share your optimism.
The interregnum between monopolies gets exponentially shorter as the money printing gets exponentially faster. What was maybe 20 years of "OK-ish" after say WW2 got down to a few years in the 90s when internet was worth browsing, from Google to AI could be just months..
Perhaps catering towards TikTok experiences, help them make the videos that they then share with their friends.
‘Pic or it didn’t happen’ has now been replaced by ‘TikTok or it didn’t happen.’ Is it possible to enjoy something without there being video evidence of it? According to my gf and her female friends the answer appears to be no.
Seriously, one random website getting less traffic means "Google is dead"? I imagine if you hit your toe, you call it "end of the world"? This sort of posts should be illegal. Flagged.
“Google is dead” feels overstated. What is actually breaking is the click based retrieval and attribution model once answers start getting synthesized upstream.
When discovery is mediated by LLMs, ranking a page is no longer sufficient because the system is not choosing a single best document. It is assembling an answer from spans that fit its internal representation of the problem, which quietly invalidates many of the assumptions SEO and ads were built on.
You can see this shift in the kinds of services being offered now. Instead of focusing on links, keywords, or bid optimization, teams are spending time on structured content that breaks cleanly into answerable fragments, on entity relationships and schema that make concepts legible to models, and on persona driven content that anticipates how questions will be interpreted rather than how pages will rank.
Measurement is shifting as well. Instead of impressions and clicks, people are running prompt level tests, checking whether their content shows up across different models, and tracking inclusion and citation patterns rather than traffic. In many cases, strong traditional pages disappear entirely from answers while smaller, better structured sources surface.
From the outside this looks like traffic declining. Internally it feels more like a loss of observability, where you cannot tell whether you were excluded, partially used, or summarized away into latent knowledge.
Google will likely face the same issue as AI Mode expands. Generating answers is not the hard part. Defining what visibility means when the retrieval layer is no longer exposed is.
For posterity, if anyone can ever find this comment amongst all the others:
We went with Instagram ads, where we have the most followers. The result: 4 paid bookings in 48 hours - all confirmed leads from the new Instagram ad campaign.
Say they drop 100bn on search revenue. How well are they positioned to convert their user platform and search crawling infrastructure onto Gemini, and introduce an advertising platform into LLMs to replace what they had? I imagine they are as well positioned as OpenAI.
I would lose a lot of sleep if I paid out for puts on them.
Such thick tension in the air waiting for the first courageous company to place ads on their LLM chats and tools.
They can spare their ad income falling for a while, but making the first move is always risky. Should they let openAI go first and fail?
Where do you go now? You go make sure LLMs know about your site, you welcome the herds of bot crawlers and pray someone breaks the standstill before your business falters.
Watching other people use Google, the predominant method of searching for information involves a query followed by getting their answer from the AI summary that appears above any search results.
I'm not sure what impact this would be having on Adwords, but another commenter mentions that Google isn't hurting in the ad revenue department.
While TFA is anecdote, the author mentions maintaining their spend, being gifted adword budget, and getting lower returns so increasing spend.
This suggests adword revenue is up, conversion to adword 'dollar' balances is inflating those balances, so both return per dollar in is down and even more down is return per adword balance dollar.
It's a leading indicator that quarterly-return focused Google must be scrambling to fix right now - they inflated themselves out of Q4 2025 but 2026 is a question mark, or to parle some Boxton Matrix, is the cash cow dying and if so is the extension strategy ad injection in AI responses, product placement in your AI videos, background changes in your family snaps, etc.
I know very little about online marketing, but my Googler marketing friend told me that just 6 months ago everybody would Google search three word terms: “best Chinatown dumpling”
But now people Google search: “my boyfriend is coming to town for the holidays and we are going to Chinatown and I want to have delicious dumplings with him because it was what we had on our first date, where should we go?”
So he now works to sell AdWords properly in that environment. I am wondering how or if OP took that into account with their new spend. What are other people doing?
I’ve also heard (probably via post+comments here on HN) that the new SEO is making tons of AI slop info pages on the site, not for humans but for AI crawlers to slurp, and then refer from prompts.
Instagram (one of the potential targets of the author to replace Google Ads) became unusable for me with this last update, where they make you wait for ads to finish.
Not that I ever used it much (in fact, after all these years, I still didn't wrap my mind around anything but simple posts), but now, I basically only go there to do a post about a group I have (and that I had to remove from Meetup because Meetup is equal shares of terribly bad and terribly expensive) and answer some messages.
There's a generation (in fact several) of people that still want to meet in person, and the platforms that allowed us to create and join groups for it (Meetup was great for that during a golden period of 3-4 years) are all turning into garbage.
This post and these comments give me low confidence in our HN community. No one here seems to understand ad platforms.
Google is far from dead. It still has the majority of the world’s online ad revenue, with Microsoft coming in second, then Meta at a far third. People assume that TikTok and Insta _must_ have the most since they assume that’s what all of their friends use, but even though they’re growing, they’re still not there yet.
Video ads on YouTube and others have a lot of play also, and everyone thinks of the TV commercials played during the Super Bowl.
But Google is still f-ing everywhere.
It’s fine to call them dying, but are they really when they are best positioned for ads in AI? OpenAI or Anthropic don’t have the data about users that Google has. There’s a reason that Buffett invested in Alphabet recently.
The real story isn't that Google Ads stopped working, it's that attention moved somewhere ads can't follow. You can't buy placement in a Discord server or an iMessage group chat. If this is the new normal, the entire ad-supported internet is running on borrowed time.
Reminds me of the whale oil business being replaced by petroleum. Except the ad-based economy was effectively a google monopsony. I'm surprised the OP managed to make ad revenue for a decade, but to me at always seemed about casino-ish and snake-oily. A decade is impressive but I think we all knew where this was going. I think the question is: will another monopsony for ads arise or will it be content based only? It seems YouTUbe is poised to be the next google since more people watch YouTube than cable, so the audience is captive since there's no alternative (yes I realize Google owns YouTube). But that's still a parasitic economy sucking from google. "Where to go now?" depends on if another ad server can gain dominance, otherwise the answer is "nowhere".
The AdWords platform is extremely complicated nowadays, and try as I might I can’t get any impressions from it. I then went through a period with an AdWords specialist from their team who also couldn’t get any impressions. It’s like they don’t want or need my money.
Here's the business model in a nutshell: If you want AI to recommend your business for some purpose, you must pay to have it included in the training corpus. And you will pay fees every time those vectors get used for outputs. And if you don't pay, you don't get mentioned.
Google Ads started charging me $5 per click on low traffic search keywords this week, meanwhile YouTube ads are still 20 cents a click (presumably to keep up with Meta)
They're having a laugh if they think we'll keep paying that for no actual leads.
Chegg’s decline is a concrete example of how AI search is changing the web
There’s been a lot of debate about whether Google’s AI Overviews and tools like ChatGPT are actually harming publishers. One publicly traded company’s timeline is worth looking at: Chegg.
What happened (with sources):
2021: Chegg launched Uversity, a platform for educators to share academic content.
(Wikipedia)
2023: ChatGPT emerged as a serious competitor in homework help. Chegg responded by launching CheggMate, its own AI product built on OpenAI’s models.
(Wikipedia)
Late 2024: Chegg reported accelerating subscriber declines, widely attributed to users shifting to free AI tools instead of paid study platforms.
(WSJ, company filings)
Feb 2025: Chegg sued Google, alleging that AI Overviews reduced traffic to Chegg by answering questions directly in search results, harming acquisition and revenue.
(Search Engine Land, Reuters)
May 2025: Chegg laid off ~22% of its workforce (≈248 employees), citing competitive pressure from AI and changes in search behavior.
(Reuters)
Oct 2025: Chegg announced another round of layoffs (~45%, ≈388 employees), explicitly referencing “the new realities of AI” and reduced traffic from Google to content publishers.
(Reuters / SF Chronicle)
What the data suggests (more broadly):
Independent studies show that when Google AI Overviews appear, users are significantly less likely to click through to external sites.
“Zero-click” searches (where users get answers directly on the results page) have increased, especially for informational and educational queries.
The impact isn’t uniform — some publishers report minimal effects — but content that answers how-to, homework, or factual queries appears most exposed.
Why this matters:
Chegg isn’t a small blog or SEO-driven site. It’s a public company with audited financials, legal disclosures, and incentives not to exaggerate under scrutiny. Its filings and lawsuit don’t claim AI is “bad” — they claim that traffic flows are structurally changing.
This doesn’t prove AI search is “killing the web,” but it does show:
AI answers are substituting clicks, not just competing for them.
Entire business models built on informational content are under pressure.
“Build better content” may not be sufficient when answers are synthesized upstream.
Curious how others here see it:
Is this a temporary transition problem?
Or are we watching the unbundling of the open web’s traffic economy in real time?
The educational and informational queries were always the least valuable from a monetization standpoint. Chegg Answers could rank for these low competition (also low commercial intent) terms-- think queries like phrases from textbooks students would be querying. There is virtually 0 way (for people besides Chegg) to monetize these types of queries. Now Google can answer these queries directly, albeit with the assumption it costs them slightly more to serve these AI responses than a search query.
AI overviews are breaking the implicit "contract" for informational sites-- "we will create content to rank on Google with the expectation of monetization via display ads, mailing list growth and/or sales commissions of some sort." If these sites now lose 90% of their traffic, they simply go extinct. We have already seen the destruction of the old web era sites and the walled gardens being built. How many new sites, at the same frequency as 15 years ago, 1) get built and 2) get visibility without relying on one of the fickle walled gardens for an audience?
Google will probably figure out a way to monetize these informational queries by building better profiles of users. Or most likely, they start slipping in commercially biased responses-- either natively or disclosed, but probably based on all user conversations instead of the current one.
I think it's time for a new way of discovering products. My ideal would be some sort of site that I can go to, to find services and products in my local area. There could also be national and international sections, with user ranked news of new interesting products in given categories.
For example, with video games I can go to sites like www.rockpapershotgun.com or others, or forums related to games, to see what the new products coming out. That's perfect in my world. No ads in my search, no ads in my email, no ads in youtube or whatever. But when I'm interested in seeing what's new, I can, on my terms, go and check out the new products.
Anecdotally, this article seems to match with what I am witnessing regarding browsing habits. I am planning a big trip with others and everything is being found via social media apps; destination ideas, experiences, cafes, accommodation, etc.
Google is not dead in this case; what is dead is Ads on top of Google. I think the best way to fix this is to ensure that your website is optimized for searches in Google and in the new AI world.
Is this really about Tiktok or about AI and how people are consuming the web? Used to be all web, then web+Tiktok,etc, now only AI+Tiktok, etc? I think I go to normal websites way less than I used to. Maybe everyone is doing that?
This feels like one of the most surreal things I have read in a while, believing that the blog is authentically written by a real person. I can't put my finger on why.
“Research shows” Lool!! Ask anyone in their teens or 20s even 30s. They’ll all answer what you did in the article. Short attention spans are ruling and so are those social media applications you mentioned.
The very concept of people going to a private digital plaza was very problematic in the first place and arguably still is. Humanity's drive towards convenience is the source of marvels but also many ills imo. Google's decline is a chance for change. Change towards something better. Not that I am optimistic that we will get there imo but the opportunity window is opening now. Don't look for a new digital overlord. Embrace the new age
You’re definitely not alone in this, I’ve seen similar drops from Google Ads recently.
It feels less like bad optimization and more like the ground shifting under everyone.
Apparently you should be getting ready to buy ad campaigns from LLM companies because they are going to inject ads into the responses soon. Young people are using LLMs like crazy in my experience.
It wouldn't surprise me if physical advertising, as mentioned in the post, makes a comeback. Especially coupled with magazines etc apparently making a comeback too.
Also, a lot of ads now have QR codes so you can tell which physical ads are driving versus traffic versus those that aren't.
e.g. the "half of my advertising is a waste but I don't know which half" is not true anymore if you are using specific QR codes per location/advertisement.
I assume physical still works. LIDL closed their shop in our neighborhood, so we stopped going unless their paper ads were interesting. Then they decided with a lot of fanfare to go all-in on digital, and as they decided we should want their ads we should install their app. Well, naughty us, we didn't. We simply stopped shopping there completely. A few months later, the paper ads are back (with a lot less fanfare), and no other shop followed their lead, so I assume LIDL was hurting hard.
I'm not a marketer (anymore), but as an end user, I feel that Google has shot themselves in the foot with the horrendous search experience they provide these days. This notion and topic of discussion is becoming more commonplace online.
"Google results are just AI and sponsored content anymore." We've all seen it.
Kagi is building their own index. There are also other open indexes. Over time these can replace the big corporate indexes. The hard truth is that the big players in search are dead. They are now the yahoo of search, with landing pages full of ads and results that are primarily ads.
See their revenue (number of paid users is not a secret): something around $7M annually? It was half of that not so long ago (glad, that the userbase is growing).
With their current pricing they are out of their league of having any full-blown index, crawlers, people, what have you.
I would say year ago I was amazed how they are alive at all (unless I am missing something in their funding).
A little over 15 years ago you could index the web with a small cluster. I remember people doing doing it with Cassandra or Elasticsearch. I'm sure you'd need a much bigger cluster, but outside video and images I imagine it's still doable even for a small organization, especially if you're filtering out content farms. Plus, there are many organizations interested in having access to an index, and I'm pretty more than a few currently running their own index and selling to analytics firms.
They already have world class search technology. In terms of indexing they only need to index the most important content. There is so much slop now and it doesn't matter at all if that is indexed. IMO their strategy of focusing on smaller sites with human curated content is correct. They can make some deals to index some of the big walled gardens and that's pretty much world class right now.
What do you think a site like Google is giving you these days? They are explicitly bad at indexing the small web. Their search technology is not better than Kagi, and made worse by ads and LLM ad bias. So what is this big "world class" thing they do that can't be replicated?
The web is not the same place it was years ago. Indexing all the slop and scams and ads is not useful to me as a consumer.
Though my gut tells me the probability of their 100% own full-blown search is very-very low.
From the current point in time few people are in the market for a paid privacy focused search.
Most of the time I spend on kagi this year is a glorified bookmark to imdb, wiki, and what have you: around 700 queries per month, which is basically the same as I have in chatgpt according to yearly stats.
Search engines can usually search the closed web as well.
Also, incentives are super high for businesses to create quality content for the open web to drive business. For example a car tire manufacturer could publish reliable restaurant reviews in order to encourage driving.
I thought SoMe replaced google for this sort of stuff like 6 years ago? GoogleAds are prob fine if you have a big retail business or something, but for anything creative some has been the marketing route I have seen everyone doing for years.
And looking at their site… Hacky creative coding. Mate, AI replaced you like 2 years ago.
Anecdotally it seems like a lot of people go to whatever LLM they have access to and ask it what to do. Surely the next frontier of advertising products is directly injecting recommendations into the response from the LLM. Or at least make the answer incorporate products and services somehow, similar to how influencers do paid content in a seamless way alongside their main content.
Google has drowned in irrelevance for me. I barely use it (i use DuckDuckGo), and it has massively de-indexed my websites for no apparent reason.
I don't even bother to look at Google Search Console
One anecdote, but I have a brick and mortar business and Adwords leads have fallen off a cliff year over year. Since AI stuff started getting pushed harder we've gotten fewer impressions and fewer conversions. Some of it is economic headwinds but also Google is just a black box we throw money into and pray it will send us business.
I think this article title misled me a bit... Google seems to be fine but it's no longer driving traffic through Ad Words. I think that in particular is really getting messed up by AI since people often don't go to any Web site once an AI agent answers their question.
Google never sells your data to anyone. Why would they sell the primary data that they themselves use to determine how to show you ads? Doing so means a deep-pocketed new advertising platform can just buy data from Google and get started with competing against Google on their primary revenue source. It’s like having a goose that lays golden eggs and selling the goose. It’s corporate suicide. I’m surprised anyone on HN even believes Google will sell your data. It takes five seconds of thinking to dispel that notion.
I remember the rise and the fall of AltaVista search engine.
I remember the rise of Google that was able to circumvent all the "old days" SEO efforts by spamming keywords in the HTML headers. Then everyone was trying to guess how to game Google page rank algo.
Finally people learned how to cheat Google, searches on many topics are returning endless pages of spam, marketing content that is supposed to earn AdSenens money (Google's "disruption" of online ads, better than all those cringe banners, that, eventually, destroyed Google search).
Right now Bing is working better for me (Bing! WTF?), for some stuff I use Yandex (shrug), but most of the stuff goes through AI, if you ask them to provide source of the information and you check it, this seems to be working fine...
For the time being, until people learn how to feed AI bots with the manipulated content they want. This will be probably more complicated, but it will happen (gaming page rank was also harder than adding "right" words to HTML keywords), unless AI providers will be careful with what they give as a food for their hungry Nvidia GPUs.
But this will be more expensive than blindly scanning the internet. That's why I see here a proper place where governments should step in, finance curation of the content for AI, as this will benefit society in a big way.
I see here an opportunity for smaller players, like Mistral, who can get some gov/EU funding and provide more quality than others who will devour whatever they find.
Ironically, Google’s Ads division and CEO have blame for this. The Ads division forced the search division to weaken the quality of search results and Google’s CEO sided with them.
I'm amazed people on HN still use Google tbh. What for? Do you expect them to get better or treat your eyeballs and attention with more dignity anytime soon?
There's Kagi, Brave Search, even DDG would be better.
Is there such a thing as a good ad? I've always blocked them on all platforms.
Looking at instagram where I don't block anything, most of what it suggests to me are soft porn or soft scams (generic chinese dropships marketed as a unique innovation).
I mean, you mean "I've always tried to block 'obvious' ads in the places I expect obvious ads to be".
The thing is the world of ads is far larger and more complicated than that. Just think of product placement in movies? That is an ad, have you stopped watching most movies?
What about content that is a thinly veiled ad? What about a set of bots that follows everything you post on line, and when it's little AI core figures out you are looking for something makes a suggestion under a post where you're asking questions?
Google isn’t dead, but it’s no longer the single answer. Even Mark Zuckerberg recently acknowledged how fast Google is improving, which explains why Meta is pushing AI harder. Still, competing shouldn’t mean replacing what already works.
They'll presumably monetize their AI (more) on both ends: getting you to pay for more access and getting advertisers to pay to be mentioned more often in the outputs. I mean that isn't really a bad position for them if you "using the Internet" degrades into you just sitting there typing queries in their Web app and never going anywhere else.
psa, "is comprised of" is almost never correct. "comprises" means "is composed of". so when people say X is comprised of Y they really mean "X comprises Y" or "X is composed of Y"
Try contacting YouTube creators in your area. Much more cost efficient than any other kinds of ads especially if you pick channels with your target audience IF you can actually get creators to promote you (most won't reply).
No matter which new technology arises on the horizon... what is tainted is not internet, not AI. Is the entire purpose on follow dollars.
I hated when needed to see Google reports for ads. And be in a rush for SEO. This was a game of rats, no real knowledge, just attempts to satisfy an Algorithm that changed on weekly base.
I quit Facebook / Instagram / Google ads 6 years ago. Why? Because my advertisement was feeding the system on who show concurrent advertisement, collecting habits of MY customers.
So the system is broken. Stop pursuing the american dream and the wild capitalism. This new generation is building immunity to many of these things, at least until their engineers find a way to take control of these minds.
About where to go...
I think we need to be satisfied with less, in the sense we need to buy a new car every year, nor new clothes just for fashion, neither gadgets just by compulsive appeal.
Buy the best you can, use it the most before discard it. Exchange fast food for what your granparents used to be fed. Know that you can be happy by yourself, not by what they said you need in the last 100 years. Life is that, the way is that. But many fall in the western system propaganda.
It's only going to get worse from here. Everything is trending towards zero for any kind of online service as it gets easier to make software with LLMs. There just simply won't any moat left.
Judging by the post this guy advertises his kids entertainment business to young people. With recent crackdowns on age verification etc. it could be his ads are no longer reaching the audience they used to.
I work in private events and the answer is definitely Facebook. Facebook ads have been better for quite some time. Targeting is a harder but also the CPCs are a lot lower so you can spray and pray a bit more.
Thanks, we tried them before but many years have passed and things have changed. Our new Instagram campaign just bore fruit in the first hour (4 WhatsApp enquiries with $1.50 spent!), will be looking at FB also
I was intrigued to see this trending, because it seems to contradict what Google has been saying on earnings calls.
It also made me wonder if this reflects conditions for individuals / SMEs rather than large corporate accounts. And I didn’t expect the story to come out of Durban - I would’ve guessed the US.
I haven't been to Durban lately, but my understanding is that the broader SA economy has been under pressure (high unemployment, etc.), and that can hit smaller/local businesses first. So it could simply be a rough patch for your market right now.
That said, if you’re seeing campaigns picking up on other platforms, you might be onto something, at least for your niche.
Looking at your website/content: you’re selling an experience, and this seems like a product that really benefits from strong visual marketing. Make it easy for someone new to "get it" in the first 10 seconds.
Three ideas:
1) Ride local trends: build demos around what’s currently hot in SA/Durban and showcase that with the Magicpods in short, punchy videos.
2) Consider adjacent use cases: beyond magic shows, this could be compelling for advertising, especially at conventions (e.g., ICC). That might be a natural expansion path if event bookings are slowing.
3) Try Airbnb Experiences, or local platforms, like daddysdeals.co.za :-)
It is fantastic to see how a research paper by Google fueled the force that might kill Google. Attention is all that is sold by google. It is an attention broker. Now that very attention is thinly distributed, Attention as the most precious food for businesses, is under fierce struggle. Google has ruled the city center area will all the attention sinks, the billboards. But AI is the new mafia on the scene that kidnapped all attention and hoarded it inside the AI data centers.
The mainstream leaving Google search and the general web would be a chance for both getting better again. A new equilibrium will establish itself one way or the other.
It's a chance.. But which for-profit environments are not going to do whatever is necessary to try to win that role and how will the worst of them not have the most profitable model?
you wrongly assumed about tiktok or shortform content.
In last 6 months I only visited google for 2 things. Searching and looking at reviews of restaurants or shops. And of course navigation in maps. Other than that I never use google now a days. I'm sure there are a lot like me.
Though, that doesn't really conflict with the story. He increased his ad spend before he figured out it wasn't working. Which would be more $$ for Google.
is super ineffective, indeed. if you need to pay 20$ to get s.o. to pay you 50$ for a service/product, well in all honesty calling people one by one and giving them 10$ is more likely to result in sale.
- Google, the company, is doing pretty well in the stock market.
- Google, the advertising company, isn't generating good ROI for its advertising customers.
From Google's point of view, they've been very gunshy about having ads be their only revenue stream for years; I wouldn't be surprised that the consequence is the value there is drying up.
Advertising revenue being up is also consistent with the linked article, since the writer had to increase ad spend to get any results before giving up entirely.
A few things to determine if what you're experiencing is actually Google "being dead"
1. Check your search volume. Use Google Trends or the method I will share below.
2. Check how you spent in December vs how you spent during a previously great time. Understand if it's a volume issue or a conversion issue
3. See if anyone new entered your auction. If they did, find out what they're saying
-- 1a) Search Volume
Checking search volume: In the era of broad match, this is one of the most underrated approaches to diagnosing issues. Take a look at your `search exact match impression share` relative to your impressions on a few of your top keywords. Then measure out if search volume for your business is actually decreasing. Then, use the following rubric to diagnose futher:
1. Not decreasing. Move on to the next item
2. 5-10% decrease and competitive auction. If you have a decrease AND a competitive auction, a 20% drop in efficiency could be explained.
3. 5-10% decrease and a not-so-competitive auction. If this is the case, the drop in volume may not be what's causing your issues.
-- 1b) Click volume
Check your exact match impression > click rate. Similar to the last approach, this helps diagnose if there are SERP feature changes which could decrease the amount of clicks you're receiving despite demand remaining flat.
If this is the case, take a look at the SERP and find the new winners.
-- 2) Segment comparison
Compare December YOY and see what changed. Are you serving to a different age range? Different search term mix? Increased spend to search partners? Are the headline combinations which are serving different?
-- 3) Auction changes
Have you checked your auction insights? Are new competitors being more or less aggressive? If so, what are their headlines? Are they offering an easier booking experience than you are?
And... if Google is actually dead, you might try:
1. Meta ads. Turn off audience network, make sure you've got the conversions API set up, and see what happens. Expect leads to be lower intent. Make your creative dead simple. "If you're looking for kid party entertainment in Northdene..." Start with $20/day optimizing for leads.
2. Improve your form. I see typeform-style-forms do better than the long one you have.
3. (Maybe) If you don't already track `closed (won)` conversions into your google ads account, that could help. I find when I start tracking which searches turn into deals, I can restructure my account to de-prioritize the junk leads.
4. (Maybe) Add a soft form to each of your service pages. Basically an embedded form which starts by asking people softball questions like "How Old Are The Kids At Your Party." Once people start a form they're much more likely to complete it, even if the questions are very basic.
5. (Maybe) Add a way to give a phone call. Phone call leads convert 30-50% better in my experience. But, this isn't an option for every
you can buy ads on instagram, fb, tiktok, reddit, youtube, amazon, apple iOS apps, the M$ windows start menu (apparently), and soon OpenAI (gemini gotta be following right)!
I don't know what click fraud is but it's a very small entertainment agency market in Durban, South Africa's 3rd largest city. We only advertised locally (specified in AdWords)
Click fraud is malicious activity where someone runs bots that click on ads for specific category keywords. For example, if this is a villa rental website, someone like competitors or a large platform, might use ad agencies that perform click fraud against the villa rental website to exhaust their budget and therefore get more traffic themselves. In the case of an entertainment agency, it might be other competitors interested in your traffic.
The first step you might take is to check that you are not advertising with AdWords partner networks, as they might be the reason for the clicks on your ads.
Second, you can check your server logs and verify clicks from Google Ads, especially the geolocation of those clicks. If they are not from your region and the visitors perform no action after viewing the first page, this is most probably click fraud.
I use our own open-source security platform (I'm a co-founder) for this purpose (1), as it's server-side and works even if bots aren't running JS. However, your website analytics might also be useful if they can collect events without JS.
Shockingly, I did not consider malicious intent as a possible reason. I will look into it. Never did trust the partner networks though, it's not that anyway, just used plain old search network
It's fine now, somehow got to #1 on Hacker News and 1000's of visitors did that. Learned something new about Cloudflare Cache Settings, it won't happen again
Click farms that we had been dealing with for our clients did not render images on webpages during visits, therefore we put tirreno on the backend of the platform, plus added a 1px image that sends the same request to tirreno to spot the difference.
Sorry in advance if this comes off as hostile, that's not my intent. I am genuinely wondering: You're in the business of advertising? And you're upset that Google isn't your golden goose anymore?
Where do you go know - maybe realize that ads make everyone around miserable and with this bitter understanding go through painful but necessary process of finding other means of earning money.
Yet if I turn off my ads my sales drop to nearly nothing, but when I turn them on again I get a steady flow of new customers as well as some repeaters who either forgot about us or needed a reminder to buy again, sometimes literally years later.
It all depends on how big you are, what you sell, and how people can or will find you. I sell something that some people REALLY want, but they will never think to Google if it exists, they just think it's not available anymore/end of story, and I rank #1 unpaid, it's frustrating.
Now I only have one ad platform I can get to work at this point and I've wasted so much money on others, trying again every few months, but they all seem to suck or I don't have the patience and pockets to try and figure them out compared to how I've figured out the one that works enough to make a living off of.
Google is in that game too with "AI Mode", stealing traffic from ChatGPT.
But as OP and other threads here highlighted, the other ~half of the gold sits in more fenced communities like WhatsApp, IG, Telegram, and other messaging and non-digital communities that are getting their "news" and "information" from viral shorts from IG, TikTok and YT Shorts.
> Right now, though – I’m broke. Anyone need a website or IOT project built? I am AI assisted, very fast!
Oh wow, this author is tone deaf to the entire situation that is occurring in the world right now. I just had a conversation with my 70 year old Aunt (no tech skills) about AI and its impact on the labor market and I used the example of how for the first time ever I actually believe she could build her own iPhone app by just talking to her computer. This is an hypothetical app that would have cost her $10k-100k or more in the very recent past. I really think the market for the very services this author is selling is evaporating or at least on hold while everyone is at least trying to diy it with AI.
that's true.Lots of people try to build app to solve their problem. ai make it easier. But I'm not sure if people want to make apps just like make a short
Contextual ads is the answer. You sell shoes, go and advertise on fashion related sites. I don't want to see a shoe ad while I'm browsing a gaming site just because I did some relative search a week ago. It's so fucking annoying and I never understood why Google never bothered to try some alternative too. I don't mean completely replace behavioral targeting but at the very least try some contextual one too.
let's take back the interwebs and have a single account where all apps store their data about you, which you can move around and also swap out clients for any data without companies blocking you
The jump from the op's "i screwed up my google ads campaigns" to "Research shows that many young people are getting their information from short video platforms like TikTok"....
Can we also talk about how dogshit YouTube Search has been the last 2 years? Some videos have turned to shorts, but they're not searchable through their search API, making the feature pretty useless.
Another explanation is that when the cost of living is high, people reduce their spending on entertainment. If that's the case, no amount of advertising will materially shift your bottom line.
Now I wonder how long until AI chat tool are riddled with ads, and with shitty content because of people trying to game them just like they've been gaming search engines.
I am glad to not be the only one to come to a similar conclusion. But we need to go one step further: I believe that Google has become harmful to the world in its present form. I'll skip listing all reasons, as there are many other websites that detailed this already, as well as (ironically) youtube videos. The problem goes much deeper than "merely" Google's monopoly in regards to all that ad-money. This is indeed probably the biggest reason why Google sucks so much nowadays, but the problem really is much bigger than that; it also taps into politics, what with the orange King meta-protecting these mega-corporations and the tech-bros ruthlessly abusing the rest of the world. We need real change, substantial change. Fixing Google is one important step but not the only one - but let's focus on Google mostly here, to simplify things a little.
The big underlying problem is that Google has no real incentive to change the way how it operates. Its search engine, which they crippled, is not really that important to Google anymore compared to the ad-revenue and other business ventures here. AI is the current insanity rage and Google went for it too. When you cripple the search engine, you can sell more bullshit to people, fake-generate and hallucinate a world wide web that is controlled by these walled garden corporations (Facebook is probably the best example of a walled garden, but there are many similar; twitter run by a crazy oligarch too, "bla bla bla log in to read news bla bla bla" - never going to do that, so they cut off my access to an open world wide web here).
I do not think Google can be fixed with the current setup though. It will just continue to steal money by taking our data and interconnecting this with other greedy private interests, now represented by lobbyists running the USA (and also other places, of course; just the USA being bigger than the other places, economically).
Google has to be split up and removed. There is no other way to fix it anymore. They want down a path from which they can not change anymore, because any change means less revenue, and no corporation wants to do so on its own.
> Research shows that many young people are getting their information from short video platforms like TikTok and Instagram. We are trying ads on there.
Well - circusscientist adds to this problem. They depend on ads, so they contribute to the overall problem. The issue is not just Google here; it is also commercial interests who think they have a right to pester-harass people via irrelevant crap (aka ads). Google killed ublock origin. Google controls the web virtually via chrome. We have a conflict of interests here. Google has no reason to change this, and many companies think they need to use ads. This is a problem. I believe in an ad-free world. I don't want to see any ads. Many years of commercial interests confused people into thinking ads are the way to go. I disagree. I think ads are evil and must die. And companies that have no alternative business model, who rely on ads, also have to go. Google is just sitting on top of it all, acting as a greedy parasite.
> We have an email newsletter
They still think anyone cares about email spam. I never subscribe to any "newsletter". A better model is to read up on things WHEN YOU VISIT THE WEBSITE.
This works on many private websites too such as github. I can read when I want
to, not when some bot spams me down with this irrelevant stuff (and admittedly I would not read ads anyway, but my point is about DELIVERY versus VISITING something here).
> We also plan to do some actual physical advertising
So he chose confrontation.
> I am AI assisted, very fast!
Why would I want to give my money to anyone using ads or
wanting to lower the overall quality via AI? That makes no
sense. Some people are beyond hope.
Not much chance of that at this point - I'm almost 50 years old and managed to make a living purely from performing so far (with a small exception of the pandemic, where I did coding mainly)
Look, the 90's Internet isn't cool anymore. Sorry. Things are cool for a while and then they're not.
Franchises die. It's still cool to say "The originals were really cool", and always will be, but now we're talking about now. Star Wars is uncool. There are people who sort of automatically praise it and subtly put down those who don't like they're aligned with a magnetic field, sure, but they're in their own world. Indiana Jones and Ghostbusters are uncool now. Star Trek is almost there. AI is not cool and never will be. Tiktok is cool, but soon everything that is uncool will descend upon it.
Sorry. Bananas blacken and apples get spots. Time moves on.
I don't know why people are so aggressively downvoting this. It's the honest truth.
I grew up before Google, I remember when it was just a useful search tool. Then an industry grew up around exploiting it in various ways and ads became a major revenue source for Google, completely changing the platform. I witnessed this entire online marketing/ad industry come into existence.
I have friends who worked in SEO for years. Very talented, smart people. But that industry is gone now. Likewise Google ads is clearly not long for this world as Google will probably get a lot more money leveraging their AI for product recommendations/sales etc.
People used creative thinking to create this industry, so the answer to "where do we go now?" is find the next one. It won't just be the same thing repeated, just like SEO and ad optimization where fairly major departures from the previous world of advertising and marketing they came from.
Did you read the page? The context is very clear: a small business that had for years gotten a lot of its leads/customers from Adwords is seeing that Adwords ("Google" in context) is not working. They are then asking (other small businesses in the same situation, "where do we go now?").
There nothing about nostalgia, no real concern for Google as a company, or how the web used to work, etc. Just a small business trying to stay afloat.
I knew about duckduckgo for years and it was always too much friction to switch. I tried like 4 times but always went back to google when I had to research something quickly. Eventually the friction of using google became high enough though that the friction of switching was not that much higher. I’ve been using ddg and occasionally duck ai for over a year now.
This is actually the most legit thing I can think of that could be behind an ad. It looks like an actual small business that is using ads as a replacement for the yellow pages, presumably when people are searching for party entertainment. I had assumed that basically all online ads were just straight up scams.
That said, I don’t ever want to see ads for it either. If I lived in Durban and wanted a juggling act, I’d like to be able to find it, as I’m sure all their clients would. I wonder if the market is just very competitive, or if they don’t show up on regulular searches for some reason.
Checked out as instructed, it somehow made me empathetic towards the OP. Not only the business completely harmless, it's the opposite: their job is trying to make people happy, and it's lovely.
Off-topic reply but I don't want to start another comment:
The problem about Google and AI has deeper layers: AI answers has trained users to not look into the source information (a.k.a websites), and websites are combating it by making themselves harder to crawl (for example, by enabling Cloudflare protection/verification), which in turn makes creating new search engine harder.
This down circle is currently unbreakable, which is a hellish situation for new comers, but great for established players such as Reddit, Facebook etc since they have internal search engine as well as mountains amount of content to provide.
If one day the big platforms (there are only handful of them) completely blocked Google from crawling them, that will be the true death of Google.
I agree, that site looks like the owners lack basic self-awareness. Surely they must use the modern internet and recognize the difference?
And if they’re unable to invest in their site or they’re simply shut out of the modern world, I’d assume the same applies to other aspects of their business as well.
I recently took someone to go and watch a hockey game. Been a little while but I personally played as a goalie myself.
The person kept making the comment that she couldn't see/find the puck and it made it frustrating to watch.
As a goalie, not being able to see the puck is pretty normal (especially with big bodies trying to screen you).
What I told her was that what matters a lot more than where the puck is, is where it's going to be in about two seconds. But the next best thing is to know where the puck is now.
If you can't see the puck then look at the players and as a last resort, look at the ref. 99% of the time they will be looking at the puck. Look where they're looking and soon enough it will appear.
I think this applies very much to this whole Google question.
The puck is gone (or on the way to the other side of the rink) and everyone is confused where it is or where it's going.
Look where everyone is looking and you'll find your answer there. It may not be in the same form as Google adwords, but the game is the same. Leveraging attention.
The tactics were different during the phonebook days (it was having your business start with the letter "A") as opposed to Google and will be different for the next thing as well.
From what I can tell, everyone seems to be looking at chatbots and vertical, shortform video. Not sure how that plays out in terms of advertising, but in terms of the answer to this article's question, that seems like a good place to start.
In my anecdotal experience, it's moved to private, trust-based channels: iMessage, WhatsApp, email, face-to-face interactions. Our 30-year bender of putting our lives online and blurring the public and the private has finally ended: people don't want to be online, don't trust social media, don't really trust any media, and are living simple local lives with a small circle of friends that they get together with regularly in person.
But then, my anecdotal experience may not be representative of most of the world. Most of my friends have money, houses, kids, friends - all of which are, by the numbers, rarities these days.
It's an interesting thought experiment to explore what it means if that actually is the new normal, and people are not consuming media or much of anything, or even if the people who are still addicted to social media are now tapped out and don't have any more disposable income left to spend. Probably economic depression. If everybody bought only what they needed and ignored all the advertisements, our present level of economic activity would plunge.
I had a very interesting discussion with a friend today, where I was talking to her about the /r/golang thread about Rob Pike's comments to OpenAI and how the thread was full of bots talking with other bots. No idea why the density of bots was so high in that thread, it was kind of absurd to see.
Then she said: "I know nobody that comments on online forums. Nobody would ever comment to strangers on the internet. It's too dangerous."
Took me a while to grasp what she meant with that, but I think she's right. Trust has eroded so much over the last two decades that most forums are either full of bots or full of annoyed and toxic people. It's very rare to find welcoming communities to newbies, and most of the ones I have discovered were offline connections.
She also mentioned that all of her friends use private profiles only, because having public profiles is too dangerous because of stalkers.
To me this sounded a bit absurd at first, but maybe that's a different perception on "how to use" the internet from a different younger generation that grew up post-socialmedia? My first contact with the internet was MIT opencourseware, her first contact was receiving dick pics at the age of 10 from assholes on the other side of the planet.
I miss the old phpbb forum days when the most toxic comment was someone being snarky and derailing the discussion into "did you use the search function?"
No idea how to fix the internet, maybe it's time to move to gopher or another protocol :-/
I think some of this is caused by the non-obvious mechanisms of how interactions on these platforms work.
When you replied to a thread on a phpbb forum (or when you reply to this HN thread), your reply „lived” in that thread, on that forum, and that was that. The algorithm wouldn’t show that reply to your dad.
I remember liking a comment on Facebook years ago, and being horrified when some of my friends and family got a „John liked this comment, join the discussion!” notification served straight onto their timelines, completely out of context. I felt spied on. I thought I was interacting with a funny stranger, but it turned out that that tiny interaction would be recorded and rebroadcast to whomever, without my knowledge.
Similarly, commenting on a youtube video was a much different experience when your youtube account wasn’t linked to all your personal information.
If you comment on a social media post, what’s going to happen? How sure are you that that comment, however innocuous it may seem now, won’t be dredged up 8 years by a prospective employer? Even if not, your like or comment it’s still a valuable data point that you’re giving to Zuckerberg or similar. Every smallest interaction enriches some of the worst people in the industry, if not in the world.
The way I speak, the tone I use, the mannerisms I employ, they all change depending on the room I’m in and on the people I’m speaking to - but on modern social media, you can never be sure who your audience is. It’s safer to stay quiet and passive.
This is very well said! Probably also why social media has become so "fake" - back in the early days of Facebook, friends would talk to each other like friends. But after my religious aunt started seeing the comments I was leaving on a friend's pics, let's just say that stopped pretty quick.
Now the only thing I would ever consider posting on Facebook is "What a beautiful day! Went for a great hike with my family and enjoyed nature."
Very true! As I remember, Google+ was a step towards figuring out this issue - instead of a general Facebook-style „Friends” that includes all sorts of different people you know (or once knew), the idea was that you’d have multiple „circles” of acquaintances that you could post to separately: family, college friends, coworkers, etc.
Of course that didn’t really pan out, and the social network itself collapsed under its own weight within a couple years without ever reaching widespread adoption. It’s interesting though, because I think it really was ahead of its time - these days I just have multiple different groupchats that I text, and that’s basically the same thing.
Yeah I liked Google+, at the time Google had a much better reputation though, if they hadn't shut it down then they did Google+ would probably be fully enshittified by now!
Most of her friends are probably women. Try making an account with an obvious female name and you will see a marked difference on most social platforms I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.
funny story: I got the wife of a friend to install tinder, a couple of years back when I was dating. I was having a hard time getting matches, so I figured I'd see how the other side lives. She created an empty profile, with a blurry hippopotamus as a profile picture, and a single letter as name. Just "H". For hippopotamus. No bio. Within five minutes she was matching with every other guy she swiped right on. Which wasn't all of them, mind you. Within another five minutes, half of the guys she had matched with had messaged her. Regular looking guys. A lot of them had same opening line. "Did you know hippos are the most dangerous animal in the world?" After that, I got why I wasn't getting any replies >.<
You can try creating a profile as a woman. I did, five years ago, on a site that advertised itself as being dedicated to "affairs" between married people.
All I said was I was 20, was red haired, and open minded. Nothing more, and no photo.
Indeed, within a couple of minutes there were guys asking me if I liked to be whipped while handcuffed to a radiator, and offered to send me dick picks if I sent naked photos first. One of them added later "maybe I'm too direct for you, is that why you're silent?"
I didn't respond to any message, but the offers kept coming. It's insane.
[dead]
I think some of us have a fair idea. And I think both sexes have problems that we could solve but continue to ignore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book)
Still a very valid experiment. I know the source of both sex' strife though: competition. I don't think we'll ever solve that, not while we're still monkeys.
I like her take-away from this experiment:
Vincent stated that, after the experiment, she gained more sympathy for the male condition: "Men are suffering. They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better. They need our sympathy, they need our love, and they need each other more than anything else. They need to be together."
I respect that, compared to the arguments that sex A is having a better time than B, or that one needs more support and focus than the other. We’re all in the same, but different, shit.
I agree with that, although a giant amount of support and attention is one way, the sexes are going through different stuff into terms of the meta-problem of "how our problems are viewed".
> We’re all in the same, but different, shit.
We are not. This is the law of averages and is absolute poison. Sexism is not symmetrical. Men do not suffer from women like women suffer from men.
Norah Vincent killed herself.
She died by assisted suicide, for private reasons. No need to exaggerate to make a point. There’s Twitter if you want to engage in that type of culture war.
> We’re all in the same, but different, shit.
Can you elaborate on other cases where the words “different” and “same” are interchangeable?
It means that if you zoom out, things look more similar. Similar patterns, similar problems and solutions, but different components.
All the various shades of red are all red. All news is engagement bate (if it bleeds, it leads), but every piece of news is different. You are in a forest in region X and I am in a desert in region Y, both could be dealing with the same problem of keeping warm at night. It's all different, and yet still the same.
I didn’t ask for an interpretation of the post, I asked for other times where anyone would use “same” and “different” interchangeably as words (in a sentence, presumably)
It kind of seems like the sentence I quoted was gibberish that’s short enough to seem vaguely profound. Unless somebody could give other examples of when those words are interchangeable (then obviously dogs is eggs), but as it stands it’s a duck pregnancy is optional type situation
It's the stupid law of averages.
You may be the victim right now, and I may be the perpetrator, but over time you'll sometimes be the perpetrator (what, do you think you're perfect?) and I'll sometimes be the victim (you don't think I suffer?), and over time it all averages out.
But just because you're the victim this time, you're getting all the sympathy. Is that fair?
I want a sandwich to eat. You want sushi. We are both hungry.
This is a good point. The words same and different are interchangeable if you do not use either word
"Same difference" /s
Same same, only different, but still same, but still different.
> They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better.
How can I agree with this? Material conditions matter: whatever problem you have, being poorer will make it worse. Women have been earning less than men for decades, and most highly paid execs are men, not women. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-end...
[dead]
Social creditscore based cloning and ai crèche raising?
It's really telling how most replies to your message are about "sexual market" or online dating. That's all some men can think of when talking about women online.
When other men post about that, all I hear is a desperate cry for help.
I understand their struggles because I lived through them. However, after I got better at OLD, I understand how it gets tiring hearing about it after a while, specially from people who are clearly on a bad path. For example, treating like a market (which I don't consider a good approach) but not accepting their current value is not enough for creating any demand. And nowadays, with the gym culture being mainstream, it's getting even harder if you don't even try to be more "valuable".
It's almost as if we desire each other.
If I summarized men online as watching pornography and following hot women on social media, people would (correctly) point out that it does not encapsulate what men do online as a whole. A lot of people do these things, but that is only part of their online experience. However, these replies are talking about OLD apps and sexual market as if women only do that online, which relates to the point of the original comment.
[flagged]
They didn't suggest men couldn't understand, they actually offered a way to help foster understanding by creating the false profile. The ones who won't understand are those who make no effort to understand, and that's quite reasonable to say.
A woman's online safety relative to other spaces also misses the point about their online spaces being less safe than those of men; the suggestion wasn't that online spaces are the absolute most dangerous spaces for them.
That said I would raise the point of how easy it is to dehumanise people online and how easy it is to quickly gather various data like work addresses etc.
[flagged]
Most men don't understand what women have to go through in everyday interactions and most women don't understand the same for men. And I think your analytical reaction to an emotional problem proves my point I feel.
> Most men don't understand what women have to go through in everyday interactions and most women don't understand the same for men.
Probably true. This is entirely different from the previous assertion you made though.
> And I think your analytical reaction to an emotional problem proves my point I feel.
It doesn't, and you have not addressed anything I said which might make your point.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I have read the full conversation, and you're still failing to recognize how the original post has a valid point. You have admitted yourself that you create online accounts without gender identification, so your own experience is different from women that do create gendered accounts.
It was never the point that it's possible to go online without recieving such ubiquitous abuse, which is what you suggest women should do. You have still not acknowledged that such high level of abuse can be dangerous, not merely for the mental health problems but for the real possibility of being stalked in the real world. That way, you're just reinforcing the point you tried to deny, which is that it's hard for men to understand such abuse without having experienced it first hand.
No I'm not failing to at all. You are.
> I have read the full conversation, and you're still failing to recognize how the original post has a valid point. You have admitted yourself that you create online accounts without gender identification, so your own experience is different from women that do create gendered accounts.
The assertion was that women find posting on the internet too dangerous. Not that they find it too dangerous when using gendered names. See, you haven't even followed the first thing!
Nevermind the fact that the entire idiotic assertion is obviously invalidated by all the countless women who do post on the internet, and with gendered names even. For the ones who don't post or don't use gendered names it's not "danger" that drives the choice. Annoyance, disgust, unsolicited attention, whatever it is. No need to make things up, or make stupid claims like "men can't understand", it doesn't help anybody.
Every single assertion made (without evidence) is trivially false.
And finally, disagreeing and debating something is not "reinforcing" the assertions that it's too dangerous for women to post on the internet, that's just stupid. And by continuing to argue with me you're just reinforcing that you're an angry racist misogynist.
See how stupid that is?
[flagged]
Over the whole population, I bet the difference between sexes is very small when it comes to what % posts online comment. You're saying "most social platforms" - what's the biggest one in the world? Probably still Facebook. Yet I'm fairly sure it has a higher female than male DAU, at least in the West.
r/kpop has 3 million subscribers. Take a look at the most followed accounts on Instagram. How many of them have female-dominated comment sections?
> I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.
You're saying this as a guy who doesn't understand the world the general population lives in, outside your highly-educated male-dominated tech bubble. You're considering only the spaces you have been visiting for most of your life.
Parent was saying that most men don't understand the amount of casual sexual harassment women are subjected to in unmoderated online spaces -- much more so than men receive.
Which makes me sad.
Apparently Y chromosome + enculturation = prerogative to send unsolicited photos of ones genitalia to random internet strangers.
No, rather both are on opposite sides of an equation, and being buried in competition from folks trying to solve their part of it in isolation.
Women == get too much attention, often of the wrong type. How to get the right kind of attention?
Men == not getting any attention, of any type. How to get some attention?
So women either get ‘the wrong kind’ of attention, but plenty of it - or somehow figure out the magic of getting the right kind of attention? Not easy.
And men work hard to get any attention, often overdoing it on the only way they can figure out - which usually has poor (but not zero!) results. Folks good at playing the game get excellent results, however.
Meanwhile, everyone is getting played by the folks in the middle.
Notably, there are plenty of women taking advantage of the attention they get on Tinder. They just have no problem solving for what it works for, which is getting laid with near zero effort.
The way this previously got figured out was a ‘managed market’ - arranged marriages. Religious/social rules, etc.
I think we might come from different cultural expectations?
In my book, it's reductive to sweep unsolicited sexual harassment under "attention", unwanted or otherwise.
It's not rocket science: everyone deserves to be treated in a way that makes them feel comfortable and safe.
Sexual harassment (having been a target of it), is pretty much the definition of ‘unwanted attention’. Targets typically just want to be left alone.
It’s also a crime in some places, not (!!!) in others, or called different things in other places depending on the details.
For example, is sending an unsolicited dick pic on a dating app sexual harassment? Is getting felt up at work, with the implication ‘or else’? Is being stalked by members of the opposite gender? Or having career advancements blocked by a lack of ‘playing the game’?
I can give you concrete examples from a number of cultures that each culture will write off as ‘he/she/they were asking for it’, or ‘she/they/he deserved it’, or ‘it’s just boys/girls being girls/boys.’.
I’ve seen it up close and personal, and have lived it.
The underlying ‘attention economy’ dynamic is still the same.
Edit: meant to add - plenty of 80/20 also applies here of course (though more extreme). Top 1-2% men (esp. from earning or traditional looks perspective) deal with the same issues that top 50%-80% of women deal with, bottom 20% of women (from traditional looks perspective) deal with issues that 80-90% of men deal with, etc.
Sure, there are misogynistic cultures out there, but that doesn't justify it from a categorical imperative perspective.
If it's okay, then it's okay for all sexes. And I'm hard-pressed to name a world culture that's equally accepting and promoting of men-sexually-harassing-women and women-sexually-harassing-men.
Can you?
It feels like you're trying to make this an argument about statistics, when it's an argument about ethics and morality.
I never said it’s okay at all. Where are you getting that from?
Reality doesn’t particularly care about one persons idea of right or wrong. And if you look at the planet, good luck coming up with a consistent definition either.
I’m also 100% sure some random persons idea on the internet or what is moral or right has zero to do with the dynamics of dating or social interactions either.
What sort of discussion do you want this to be about?
I know. Parent, along with the reply, also said that women as a result are much less active online, but that's a belief caused by a lack of grass touching.
> "I know nobody that comments on online forums. Nobody would ever comment to strangers on the internet. It's too dangerous."
> Most of her friends are probably women
-> "Women don't comment on the internet (especially compared to men) because it's a hostile place".
I think the implied difference from upthread was that women are less active online in public, unmoderated spaces for the aforementioned reasons.
It's no surprise they often use private and/or moderated spaces instead.
Thats just what the internet of the mid to late 90s was like. People rarely used their real name, there were hundreds of forums, some private. You could have different nicks on them.
Nobody knew you were a dog on the internet[1] until the rise of Facebook and linking your real identity with an online identity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
The idea that everyone has only one identity, one whole, is harmful.
People change over time. People change even a little based on who's around them. Even memories change as people see things in new lights.
The Internet of the late 90s and early 2000s was spectacular in that everyone could be as authentic and deep as they wanted to be, and as shallow and invisible as they wanted to be depending on context.
Firefox? Want to know how to really sell yourself. Be 'For the User', like TRON (but avoid that for copyright reasons and because normal people don't understand). The user should be able to TRUST that Firefox isn't selling them out, spying on them, or doing anything strange. That when Firefox creates identity sandboxes they're firewalled from each other to the maximum extent; including resisting device fingerprinting (just look generic and boring).
You could argue (it certainly has been argued) that the ability for technology to dissolve the usually more coherent identities that we take on daily by granting unlimited role play, trolling, and exploration is simply too much for a lot of people, and makes it hard to maintain a coherent sense of self. This is especially true of people who are “internet addicts” - not that the designation means a whole lot as I’m here at the gym talking to you on the phone.
Don’t get me wrong, I mostly agree with your comment. I think even more dastardly is the tendency for the internet to market new personalities to you, based on what’s profitable
There's also the inconvenient truth that a very specific part of the world was online in the 1990s.
Primarily more educated, more liberal, more wealthy.
Turns out, when you hook the rest of the planet online, you get mass persuasion campaigns, fake genocide "reporting", and enough of an increase in ambient noise that coherent anonymous discourse becomes impossible.
I mean, look at the comments on Fox News or political YouTube videos. That's the real average level of discussion.
It's still possible in smaller, constructive communities, not in large general-purpose social networks.
As a hn poster, I agree with this
The 1990s internet was definitely not more liberal! 4chan style forums were probably the rule. I can’t believe someone would say that, clearly you didn’t use the same internet that I did.
He didn't say the internet was more liberal, he said the people on it were.
Before you start forming your reply, think about the actual culture back then. If you take slashdot as somewhat representative of the 90s internet culture, it was basically anti-corporate, meritocratic, non-judgmental, irreligious, educated, non-discriminatory, and once 2000 came around tended to be highly critical of the Bush agenda.
4chan at that time and places like it represented more of an edgelord culture, where showing vulnerability or sensitivity was shunned, everything revered by the larger populace was ruthlessly mocked, and distrust of society and government in general was taken as natural. Calling them conservative would have been non-sensical.
Exactly. If I had to characterize the general internet (read: what would and wouldn't raise an eyebrow in an average forum) in terms of political alignment, it'd probably be:
That SA / 4chan (both of which were really post-90s) existed were in no way proof of an anti-liberal bent. Their very edgelordness was an implicit reveling in absolute freedom of expression (even if their later liberal-pro-censoring and alt-right splinter movements subsequently forgot that).4chan was very much left-wing to liberal until Stormfront invaded them back. After Caturday came Soviet Sunday.
But your friend is wrong. She does know at least one person who comments on online forums. I bet she knows more too.
Completely agree. Look at some videos on YouTube. 20,000 comments on brand new videos sometimes. A lot of good people are commenting on the internet. The problem is that the trust in public institutions is at an all time low, and that is leading to much more doom and gloom and those of us who are from the 2000s can feel the difference in the comment sections.
Don't ask don't tell.
People use analogies constantly. That was an analogy - it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
exactly!
Most of the internet users are passive content consumers, and it’s been the case since a long time ago. There's a post about it from 2019:
https://bewilderbeast.org/2019/08/16/most-of-what-you-read-o...
I never tell people I comment online. No one I know knows my Reddit username (as far as I know…). Few of my friends even know what HN is.
Keybase wants to be that hub. Well, it can't be, sir.
I know. In fact, millions of us know your reddit username
What a weird comment.
> No idea how to fix the internet, maybe it's time to move to gopher or another protocol :-/
Fido and Usenet are still around. Kind-of. IMO google virtually killed that, too, when they started peddling google groups and did the classic embrace-extend-extinguish on the Usenet.
Perhaps time for a revival - text mode only, please, to keep out those that I don't want on there (the platform appearing too unattractive might be the way forward to avoid the TikTokers).
To be fair, back in those "good old phpbb days", people trolled just as hard as anyone does now, and maybe worse, since the consequences of it were not as visible, and getting in trouble for things you said online was virtually nonexistent. Everyone used a fake name, and while it might be possible to dox someone, it wasn't an operational concern for anyone who just wanted to be a jerk...
> people trolled just as hard as anyone does now,
Trolling had (has) a different character in smaller, more private forums: it tends towards more effort. A low-effort troll just gets banned and loses their platform, so the troll needs to at least ride the line of legitimacy. Drawing the line back to Usenet, the sheer effort that went into some trolling garnered respect if not necessarily acceptance.
Drive-by interactions reward volume since the 'game' isn't repeated. Curated social media feeds like Twitter are even worse; the troll has their own audience predisposed towards acceptance and the victim is just set-dressing.
I analogize this to in-person interactions: ostracization is mutually costly. A small group loses a member who was at least making a 'warm body' contribution, but the ostracized person loses a whole set of social benefits.
So true. I was one of those trolls, so I know it well; playing the role of a heel. People would know and remember you by avatar and custom forum titles and a huge garish signature... it cemented you as a person, gave you a face in a way that Hacker News or Reddit threads do not.
The trolling that happened on IRC would put modern day trolling to shame. Imagine posting a link to an exe claiming to be one thing but would actually contain Back Orifice (a Trojan that gave you remote access to the victim's pc). People would blindly download exes and run them on completely unprotected Windows 98.
To be fair I do miss the "old Internet". Less corporate, money grabbing, more freedom.
It's not the internet that changed, it's the people.
I'm an old timer, and I've been there since the beginning. I remember the beginning of the eternal summer, and the gradual decline that came after.
One of my first jobs was actually 3rd shift help desk for a regional dial-up ISP. The people that called were mostly drunk southerner's who, at the time, seemed hopelessly non-technical.
Looking back I now see that any one of them knew much, much more about how the internet actually worked than a the average modern user, and were probably more worldly in general than todays average user.... and there are billions more of them now.
We thought that global access to information would democratize everything and expose people to a higher level of rhetoric and thinking. We just KNEW that the best ideas would rise to the top of discourse naturally and the world would magically become a better place. We were so very wrong. It's turns out that more than cream floats.
Well, of course it's the people. I started online in '94 and it was exclusively the territory of nerds for a long while, even as everyday folks started to use the web and email for basic things. Truly, we should appreciate having places like Hacker News for still giving us a place to post like we always used to...
Plenty of forums still do exist, but I wonder about their future as we age out. Car forums in particular were absolute godsends for amateur mechanics - not just to look up info but to ask a self-selected group of interested folks who were happy to help for free out of a sense of community for fellow fans of their brand.
I think the cDc made some effort to brand Back Orifice 2000 as a remote administration tool and in reality it really was pretty good for that; wonder what happened to those guys
> how the thread was full of bots talking with other bots
I am sure there are some dead giveaways, but how can you be sure about that?
What I have experienced is both going into forums/discussions someone said was bots talking to bots, with no real clear indication by any of the many markers I am aware of that it was in fact bots; and also comments calling responses bots seemingly as a manipulative dismissal in response to something that was not the consensus or commonly approved position.
I say that because my impression is that what is happening is a full on breakdown of civic discussion and conversation as a whole. The internet destroyed IRL public forums (pubs/bars, clubs, etc) and the draconian COVID policies took the death knell to many more, and now bots and the seemingly bigger issue of immediate distrust of everything, seems to also be destroying online conversations of all sorts.
Yes, you’ll be able to have small group meetings and maybe even voice/video only conversations, but that brings a whole host of other systems changes with it, especially as mass surveillance long surpassed anything the worst tyrants of history could have ever even dreamed of implementing. It all seems a shift into unhealthy territory as a civilization in general, including since essentially all western governments cannot be trusted by their own people anymore.
I had a comment auto-removed from a subreddit and when I mailed its mods to inquire what might have triggered it, I was informed that commenting on a post from a month ago (yes really) is now considered a red flag for spam/bot activity.
I miss phpBB/IPB/etc. forums having a pair of resident "trolls" who were by far the most prolific posters on the entire forum, because they would gravitate to each other and "debate" at length, ostensibly but questionably as bitter rivals
They don't write on forums but they like or share a story. It's just more passive/consumer-minded.
> Trust has eroded so much over the last two decades that most forums are either full of bots or full of annoyed and toxic people. It's very rare to find welcoming communities to newbies, and most of the ones I have discovered were offline connections.
Tumblr is still doing pretty well on that front. I'm there for a fandom, and it's a super positive atmosphere where everyone just wants to make and talk about cool art.
I don’t see any obvious evidence of bot activity on that thread (and all of my spot checks strongly leaned human). Were some comments removed or something?
I noticed a few people on HN have started complaining that anyone arguing with them is a bot. I think it's a coping mechanism at finding people who challenge them, but maybe they've been on too many bot-infested forums lately, or are just young (that might overlap with both users of bot-infested forums and those who haven't had their ideas challenged much).
All my real HN friends are on https://news.ysimulator.run/news
The forum where Skynet becomes self-conscious :)
I know I self-censor a LOT.
For what its worth. I recently joined "Carpokes" which is a free members only Porsche forum being run by a man hell bent on keeping it a friendly, bot-free, community. Its been great engaging in a forum again where I look at it maybe once a week.
> she said: "I know nobody that comments on online forums.
Yet she knows you and you and me are strangers talking to each other on this forum. I think we don't know even close friends what online communities people hang out - the reason she didn't know about you being on HN.
Niche forums still exist with real humans like for example, LTT or openZFS forums. But main stream ones like XDA, reddit or YouTube etc are totally ruined by AI.
I think the idea that nobody would talk to strangers online is a bit too general. We are all mostly doing it here. I do it on reddit all the time in the same recurring subreddits that I've grown to trust. IRC was also pretty hostile back in the 90s. But again it depended on the communities. Just think you can't generalize the internet this way.
True I would also add that this an exception to most social media platforms. I feel as there is a roundtable Everytime somone posts a something. I'm some how invited and listening, whether I comment or say something is entirely up to what I have to share. Argument or debate isnt so aggressiveas it's factual based for the most part.
And yet, here you are, posting ...
BTW, I don't explicitly disagree with what you're saying, but it would be good to look at actual data instead of anecdata to know for sure, and the people who have the data are not telling ...
> And yet, here you are, posting ...
Correction, I am posting while pooping. I don't care much about social media these days and I draw the line at the toilet door.
Given the word count of your original post, I can tell you that daily psyllium husk is a miracle.
Actually, thanks for the reminder.
Which Reddit thread was that, out of curiosity? And how do you know which commenters were bots?
most people just don't tell other people about what they do online. it's very private.
like, it's a running on joke on most social media websites that "i hope no one i know irl finds this account..."
i think your friend is just overestimating her knowledge of her friends' lives
I’m a man who had to do this because of stalkers. Literally serious, life damaging stalkers.
Reputation management is what it will take to bring trust back to all forms of media. It means creating a trusted identity that can be verified, and that the identity is known to be a real human with a reputation to lose if exposed as being a bot or otherwise untrustworthy.
Unfortunately, for common people whose aim is not celebrity, this means handing over your privacy in order to have a voice.
We can do this in our IRL circles of trust, people know you because they have met or interacted with you personally.
Online, this means someone like Zuck creating a digital identity for us after we entrust them with our privacy, or some kind of open source complicated technology identifier like a cryptographically verified signature that is techno bro-free that will only be adopted or understood by tech literate.
It's a dark day for genuine human interaction and trust.
> Reputation management is what it will take to bring trust back to all forms of media.
Does that really work, though? I think it doesn't -- think all the anti-vaccine type influencers -- their identities are known and they're ok with it.
> It means creating a trusted identity that can be verified, and that the identity is known to be a real human with a reputation to lose if exposed as being a bot or otherwise untrustworthy.
Surely this won't be used for nefarious reasons or to silence individuals like it's done in the UK or in the cancel culture actions. /s
This thread is working pretty decently. No bots so far
Absolutely this. I recently got a nice photo taken with my kids and for the first time I... didn't post it on Facebook. I sent it to my family group chat. Yesterday I posted on Facebook for the first time in months and it was about the power being out for an hour in the ice storm. I haven't posted travel photos to FB in years.
I'm mostly still on FB at all for the acquaintance-level connections to things like neighbourhood, church, and hobby communities. All the people I actually care about are in private group chats.
I was reflecting recently that Google Plus actually had the right idea back in 2011 with "circles", but at the time we all said it was too hard figuring out which circles we wanted to share a particular message or thought with. Hmm, maybe they were ahead of the game all along?
Everyone who was on Livejournal before G+ “invented” “Circles” had absolutely no problem with locking posts to “friends” (people they followed) or various “friends groups” that were subsets of their friends. It was fucking hilarious to see everyone say it was too hard on G+. Just two dropdowns right there on the new post page next to the main text field. Super simple. Creating and editing the groups was a pretty simple task with its own page.
Now that I look back at that I wonder what kind of theories suggest that abilities like that will result in reduced ad impressions, since I feel like every decision made by social sites makes much more sense when viewed through that lens.
Yeah LiveJournal (my username there is lightfixer) really came close to replicating how we actually social. Deciding who is able to see what I posted on an individual level was great. Could create groups etc.
In retrospect LiveJournal was pretty great as a social network of its time. It's too bad it got turned into some kind of Russian spam site.
it was russian twitter
and twitter is a spam site, so you're somewhat right
I still mourn G+. It was clearly put together by somebody who thought first and foremost about privacy. It made deciding who to share what with the central, most visible part of how it worked. And that's probably part of why it failed. Was it hard to choose? Nope. But I guarantee you that if Facebook added a little "hey, are you sure you want to share this post publicly with the whole world under your real name? Yes/No" popup, organic content would drop 50% overnight, and not because of the difficulty of clicking "Yes." G+ died in part because it looked like a ghost town to a visitor, and it looked like a ghost town because everything was being done in private. And that was a great thing!
Mind you, G+ also made some insane and boneheaded decisions. I think at one point they tried to make all Youtube comments also be G+ posts under your real name, or something like that? That was fucking stupid.
People will make frequent mistakes if you put the privacy decision at a per post level. (And not just average users: see stevey's Google Platforms rant)
Having different apps, chats (Discord servers), accounts (at-a-push) for each privacy circle is much clearer to average users. Migrating a whole group of any size to another platform is hard, hence many of us are stuck with Facebookk in case we get invited to something we don't want to miss on it, but new platforms will continue to emerge and some will succeed.
> It was clearly put together by somebody who thought first and foremost about privacy.
Except that they worked for a company that clearly wants all of your data. Privacy and Google are often at odds with each other… and for the folks that understood privacy at the time, it was a hard sell unless they worked at Google.
Privacy to me means that even Google doesn’t get to peek in whenever they feel like it.
Another mistake is that they had a significant presence in Brazil through Orkut, but they didn’t bother to integrate and migrate the users in.
Orkut’s user base was already degraded through Facebook but it was not inexistent, as some features of Orkut were unique. One was that it allowed people to use alt accounts to participate on anonymous discussion, not much different from Reddit, I’m sure with some creativeness G+ could have benefited from extra users.
Orkut Büyükkökten's orkut.com might have been a semi-private project (Google, like any company, doesn't normally name its products after first names of its coders).
Also, as you say, it was populated by many Brazilians, an imbalance like that may discourage non-Brazilians from joining, so not sure if integrating them would have helped or hurt.
I was an Orkut user from the USA for a few years. The vibe was way nicer than Facebook. I think I was with them from 2007 to 2011 or so.
killedbygoogle.com says 2004 to 2014 so a decent chunk of the service's run.
The biggest boneheaded decision from my perspective was their taking over the + prefix in Google search (to filter for results that have this term verbatim). That just positioned G+ as my enemy and I had a strong desire for it to die. Unfortunately, they didn't bring back the prefix even after it died. Quotes around a term do something similar, but I am still angry.
I think that change happened well after G+ was dead
I just found this October 2011 post reporting about this change as it happened (4 months after G+'s launch in June 2011):
https://waxy.org/2011/10/google_kills_its_other_plus/
According to Wikipedia, G+ usage kept growing from about 40M that October to 90M by the end of 2011 and then to hundreds of millions over the next few years, but the reporting methodology seems very inconsistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B
"It was clearly put together by somebody who thought first and foremost about privacy."
The legendary Andy Hertzfeld played a role in shaping the design of Google Plus.
https://techcrunch.com/2011/06/28/google-plus-design-andy-he...
G+ died because it was clown colored google product, not a communal space for people. It was technology without any aesthetic that made you want to be there.
Myspace was hilarious because it was such a mess. The people owned it, hacked the css. Every profile page was a messy real person.
Beside my friend who was gifted with invitation, there was nobody else from my circles (sic) and when asked they were replying with standard "why I should make yet another account". So for me it was a ghost town right from the start.
And frankly it was actually the first place where I truly noticed how big companies are extracting data from us; back then I felt really unpleasant when I tried to fill up profile.
I've got this old screenshot [1] and profile included: about me, "I know this stuff", current occupation, employment history, education path, place of residence with map, home and work addresses, relationship status and what kind of partner you are looking for, gender, other names - maiden name, alternative spelling, nickname, visibility in search results and a section for links to other websites. This may be seen as not much today but back then even facebook wasn't that "curious" - that was about to change.
I also tried to utilize Google Wave for our university group to keep us informed etc., but people wanted just "plain old" emails with attachments.
[1] - https://ibb.co/SDDGG3PJ
The migration of YT accounts to G+ is how most of the critical mass learned there was G+. It took years to recover nicknames.
IMO, their biggest problem was that they made a product that was terminally uncool.
Even worse was Google Wave. Totally unusable from the start, which is when I tried it, due to all the hype (by them) about it. Probably too JavaScript-heavy, was the reason, I think, back then. I remember reading reports confirming my guess, at the time. I was on an average machine. I bet the Google devs had quite more powerful ones, and in their infinite wisdom (not!), did not trouble to test, or even think of testing on average machines that most of the world would have.
Google Wave worked fine for me, as I recall. I remember being really impressed on one level, but I also couldn't figure out what to actually use it for.
A couple weeks ago, I thought about diving back into demos to reacquaint myself with it. It's possible that it was ahead of its time. Or maybe it was a solution in search of a problem.
Downvoters surely work for, or are asscolytes of $GOOG, heh. More slaves they!
G+ copied some features and design work the open source federated social media, particularly Diaspora. So yeah, a lot of the features were developed in context of privacy protections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymwars
yeah they made a lot of mistakes, the biggest one was not iterating on making it a good product. they just dumped it into the world, mostly formed and did nothing with it.
it had a lot of good ideas like you said it just needed to make it simpler to use, maybe even make the circles stuff not default though i didn't have much trouble with it
forcing everyone to use something that still had teething issues was the biggest screw up, if they wanted to integrate youtube they should have started with making G+ popular so people would actually want that, and yeah real names so dumb.
blizzard tried that as well lol. then some guy rang up blizzard hq and told one of the higher ups where his kids went to school and they suddenly realised full name is actually too much information
Discovery was bad.
I was the one to push G+ and Gwave on my friends and it did not take at all.
I remember that the (initial) invite-only aspect played out in the worst way. Some FOMO angle works, but it ended up just ... not working, and who joins a social media wastleland?
+ also got a bad rap due to what happened to Youtube - merged accounts - and yeah Google acted in some awful ways in more than one way but they were also trying to solve a problem of Zuck's shifting views on privacy (or rather the same view, that it shouldn't exist)
It probably wasn't the worst thing ever to try to leverage some of the existing social networking going on on YouTube, but combining it with a real name policy and making the actual posts/comments into first class global content for the G+ feed? Idiotic, and completely undermined the whole premise of safely walling off your content to its intended audience.
(See also: nice how reddit now makes it possible to curate the list of which subs you participate in whose comments and posts appear on your global profile page)
(btw this is trivial to bypass; actual segregated alt accounts remain the only thing you should rely on if you need compartmented identities/aspects)
Reddit is fucking miserable. I don't want to claim they profited solely off the work of Swarz, because his involvement wasn't... total, I mean he left, but it feels like one of these things where mediocre people get control over something which was initially made by people who actually know what they're doing
> Reddit is fucking miserable
Reddit is the town bar, the popular one.
Some people love the town bar! :)
Some people hate the town bar! :(
Things like this can often be assessed on a macro level. When you start to get the number of users sites like Facebook have and sites like Reddit claim they have, you end up with content that's reflective of a broad sample of society. You do have that on Facebook, you do not have that on Reddit.
I suspect Reddit is intentionally overcounting by doing things like counting multiple devices as different users, multiple accounts as different users, making minimal efforts to remove bots, counting dynamic IPs as distinct users, and so on. You could even count API callers as users, but that is stretching the limits of plausible deniability. The thing is - their content isn't reflective of the popular town bar, it's representative of an insular clubhouse with some small rooms in the backyard for 'normies.'
If you look at their "all accounts" it's over 650,000,000.
Around 250,000,000 is monthly user usage, which would be for one or more accounts.
And if course, like every site, a percentage that keep the thing going (around 35,000,000 daily logins).
It's one of the top sites on the internet and has been for a very long time.
I tried to start using Reddit. None of my friends had ever heard of it or wanted to use it, and I soon lost interest in it.
From my little experience of using it, it seems that its main audience is the mentally retarded or just children under 11 years old.
The same questions are asked all the time. It wasn't difficult for me to find a search on the site for why they don't use it?
There is a lot of nonsense in the comments/answers, which they state with full confidence.
And there was also a feeling that there are rarely disagreements in discussions, even if there are minor differences, everyone adheres to a single line, often related to the topic/name of the subreddit.
I found several people creating content that I was interested in, but some of the posts on the page were hidden and it was easier to follow them on YouTube or blogs.
In general, searching for valuable posts or comments is like digging through manure to find gold.
And even if you find a clever idea or a good technical hint, it was often easier to find it just by reading the documentation. It's the same with interesting posts. If it's something worthwhile, then it will be on twitter, blog, YouTube, social networks or in some forums.
I'm not talking about advertising every second post, or even among the comments. Disabling ad blocking was a mistake.
> it's representative of an insular clubhouse with some small rooms in the backyard for 'normies.'
A very appropriate definition. It's not even interesting to discuss something on Reddit. If your opinion or thought coincides with the ideology of the subreddit, then you will have a lot of likes. If it don't match, you get dislikes, insults, or worse, no response.
In general, I did not find any benefit for myself on Reddit and I am unlikely to return there, it is a waste of energy and effort.
Reddit is a bunch of bar districts in a large city. You can find any sort of bar you want. Some of the bars you'll love. Some of them you'll hate. Some of them will make you say "what the hell is any of this?"
It's an almost infinite variety. Fractal even with how many subreddits are the results of splits from an older subreddit.
You can find any sort of bar you want, but all of them are owned by the same shady company which waters down the drinks, are involved in secret backroom deals which sometimes results in things like selling your personal info or in bars being closed without notice. They also refuse to give the bouncers the training and resources they need which leaves many bars full of jerks who shouldn't have made it inside in the first place, while in other bars you can find yourself thrown out for no reason at all.
It's kind of like an American grocery store where you have shelf after shelf filled with different brand names and products in all kinds of colors and flavors, but they're all owned by one of three corporations so it really doesn't matter which product you buy, you're still supporting the same assholes who will gladly poison you if it'll increase their profits by a fraction of a cent, so naturally most of your choice comes down to the flavor of the poison.
No. I'm very specifically saying (contrary to your implication) that it's the management of the bar which is the problem
HN loves to do this. "Platforms are mirrors held up to society". No, not always. Sometimes there really is unnecessary executive top-down control
One of the things I hope will come from the Trough of Disillusionment in cloud computing will be families running redundant file servers hosting the family photos instead of doing everything on IG.
Your three tech savvy family members should all have redundant copies of the photos of memaw’s wedding and Uncle Jim when he was 2 and looked exactly like your cousin’s second kid. I don’t need to see those. Your stalker ex boyfriend definitely doesn’t need to see those. It’s none of our goddamned business.
Someone, I think WD? Already made a play at this but I think it fell on deaf ears and will have to be tried again after the hype cycle calms tf down.
My very vibes-based take is that setting up home servers is the dad jeans of tech hobbies. It's kind of arresting how bewildered many young people are when confronted with anything below the UI layer. I think peak tech savviness happened a bit younger than me: maybe mid-late millennial. After that you start getting into the iPad-from-birth generation for whom tech was rarely a challenge. Tech savviness among young folks feels more like it was in the mid-90s. They're infinity more online-savvy, no doubt, but when it comes to knowing anything about how that works, they're cooked.
I do know some non-developer Gen Z folks that would set up minecraft servers on DO droplets, but I don't know of any that actually made their own and hosted it on their own network.
Aside from more exposure to raw tech, the technology making the internet happen was a lot simpler back then, where servers were actually physical servers,and such. I was able to adopt the complexity progressively as it came into existence which is a lot easier with the base knowledge of how the building blocks worked.
This is my impression as well. From what I've seen, many Gen Z people only loosely even think in terms of things like "files". They are used to integrations where everything just lives on some website or in a Google app and the way you locate things is by searching.
I am a professor of CS and we found, post-pandemic, that very few students had any exposure to real computers. It was all smartphones and tablets. So the things you mention—not knowing what a file is—really is the state of things. We now explicitly talk about files in our intro programming courses, first as a general idea in CS1, and then we dig into (some of) the representations in CS2.
Although there has also been a softening of math skills among the weakest students, the best students are still quite capable, so the erosion is mostly in tech skills, not analytical skills.
I'm also noticing another trend with my 16yr old daughter and her friends. They are craving old school offline experiences. They have all dragged out the parents and relatives old music collections, cruising second hand shops for old CDs etc. when they visit others houses they are checking out each other's household book and music collections.
She recently got a cheap digital camera with no screen and just a shutter button and and plain old viewfinder. The idea is that like the old days you don't know what you took a photo of until (a bit like getting the film developed) you plug the SD card into a computer and have a look.
I think she'd get a kick out of ripping CDs and ditching Spotify. I can teach her all about files and filesystems then haha.
My 19yr old son doesn't follow the same old school stuff, but he kinda shunned social media from the beginning.
That's cool to hear. I fear it's not the main trend, but it's comforting somewhat.
We still need a lot of plug and Play with home servers.
In theory, AI should be good at helping building interfaces between cloud backups and home server apps. Because AI should be good at apis.
In theory
I’d like a turnkey k3s and a 10” rack designed for consumers. Set up to host your Minecraft server, store your media, and be incrementally upgradeable.
Gamers are the ones building PCs by hand. They have the skills, it’s a matter of motivation.
The software and security aspects of running a server are far more consequential and complex.
Building PCs by hand nowadays is quite trivial. You don't need to set bunch of jumpers on the motherboard correctly, manually assign IRQs, etc. The peak "complexity" modern gamers deal with is correctly overclocking their gear without frying it or making the system unstable (which is mostly done in some nice GUI according to a youtube tutorial anyway).
"dad jeans" ?
I just set up a little cube server with a Mini-ITX board I had lying around. Overall I'm very happy with it, but right now it's basically just Unraid with the built-in containers running for Deluge, Jellyfin, and the Crafty minecraft server.
I'd love for it to also be a backup of my whole Google Photos account (eg https://github.com/JakeWharton/docker-gphotos-sync) but honestly I can't imagine trying to maintain an app on there that would actually be the first class storage/sync/presentation layer for my family.
> I can't imagine trying to maintain an app on there that would actually be the first class storage/sync/presentation layer for my family.
Immich exists. It really is missing only some editing functionality and some nice-to-have features from GPhotos like automatic panoramas. Other than that, it's superior to Google.
Immich feels too heavy for my needs, so I wrote a single executable server that turns my photo directories into a photo gallery (https://github.com/yhling/go-web-image-gallery)
Photo ingestion is via regular samba uploads from my phone.
You might be shocked. Immich is amazing.
I'm working on it! I have a little NUC that I'm learning Linux (Is that the proper term?) on. I plan to self host a few services for myself and host family photos on it someday.
I'm going through a "Deep, Vast, Trough of Learning" at the moment :>
Too bad all of the RAM and NAND flash are going to be unaffordable for the next few years at least.
Once you include internet latency hard drive latency isn’t that much worse. It won’t help but it won’t stop it.
Hard disk drive prices are also soaring. Looking up a random WD drive: up 70% since July, a Seagate drive, up 50%
For $125, which is also about the price of one year of cloud storage, you can get a hard drive big enough to store half a million photos and also back up a million photos. It probably won't ever go over $200.
And the hardware to serve that hard drive is somewhere between free and another hundred.
Sure, but then you're putting all your eggs in one basket (hard drive). If you really want to divest yourself of the cloud then you need to set things up in a redundant and fault-tolerant fashion. And at that point the outlay is much more than 'just a hard drive'.
Did you skip the "back a million photos" part? That's at least 3 copies of every file, spread across your group. If you want maximum safety you can add a local backup too, which isn't much more money. You don't need to spend anything on fault tolerance. Your files should already be on multiple servers, but also if it goes down for a few days that isn't a big deal.
That was already covered in my top level comment though. Geographic redundancy not local mirroring.
Yes, you need two hard drives. If you’re really paranoid, use three.
I’ve been thinking about setting up a family domain and just hosting my family’s pictures to it as a way to share internally. But the risk exposure of running anything online is just so bad now, it feels risky and a pain in the ass to both give family access to see and post but also seal it off from spammers and scammers.
The way in which any open text box on the internet is guaranteed to turn into a malware vector is new now, and makes casual and marginally technical users trying their own thing much higher stakes and annoying.
If you setup a server at home, you can expose it via a cloudflare tunnel, meanwhile it's behind your firewall + NAT. This will obfuscate the server IP a bit. It allows allows you to use very simple cloudflare Zero Trust rules to only allow people to access your server/website from people with a user account on that domain. (Or geographical restrictions, etc, etc)
I was thinking about something similar. ( Family photo sharing) The problem is: family is so used to Instagram and co, that they won't use it.
Yeah why put anything on social media. Your content is just a means to put ads alongside, and then trained to death by their AI.
Apple has photo sharing where you can share photos privately.
Agreed, Apple shared albums seems to be the default. It’s not amazing, but your photos and contacts are already there, no new network required.
It's interesting to see how much of a behemoth Discord has become. Seems like there's a Discord for everything - from open source projects to hobbies and games to individual groups of friends/family.
It's occupying the segment that subreddits historically have. However, it's perhaps-intentionally search-opaque. You can't Google to find a message/link/download that's gated by Discord. And it also gives a sense of community, where someone who had more attention and time on a computer than a sense of what to do with those things can go have casual conversation with… someone.
Discord is really where it is at these days. Discord servers with 50-100 people form the new social fabric of the internet where real community lies. In theory Reddit was supposed to be this but
1. Reddit communities tend to get too large
2. Subreddits overflow into each other too much through cross posting and brigading
3. Post history being public meant that you could get banned/brigaded for your comments on a totally different subreddit (i.e. bots autobanning you on one subreddit for posting on another subreddit).
The magic of discord is that everyone in the server I frequent I either know personally or they are known by someone I know personally. It creates a nice fabric of community and trust. Literally zero moderation over the past 10 years as everyone knows each other and behaves like normal adults and we also don’t get all up in arms when someone says something controversial.
The culture on discords tend to be way better than anywhere else on the internet, but discord really sucks to use. Somehow still doesn’t have a usable search, really underpowered notifications control, they have the worst pop ups imaginable that seem to just float on top of the whole interface and make it impossible to use.
I really wish something better would come along.
I wish Discord had a betrer account switcher on mobile. I have a realname account for friends ana family, and another I use with randos.
I use discord PTB and Canary to run multiple instances with different accounts on a single device.
It also allows running multiple instances with a single account (to be on multiple vocals at once for example).
The only drawback is the release cycle is more frequent and I need to update every time I boot.
Is this a feature of PTB, or something coming soon to the stable version?
> Somehow still doesn’t have a usable search
worst part is that it used to :/
It can do per channel and per server notifications for all messages, @mentions, or none.
What else would you want?
I also want levels of notifications. Especially emergency one - Some channels are super critical and I want to be notified immediately, give me a popup, ring my phone, override if my phone is on mute, then call me. Kind of like pagerduty.
Arbitrary regex matching. Something I use in IRC often.
I lurk in a bunch of Discords for things I'm not active in, but don't want to have to find an invite to if I need to ask a question in the future.
I always have a notification badge on Discord, and I hate it. Too many servers have channels where I get pinged, even though the channel is muting. I'm presuming someone is doing something like "hey @all, play with me"
I ought to be able to register that I will never ever care about this channel. Please ignore it for me.
You can mute channels and servers completely and get no notifications.
The problem with Discord is that I have to know exactly where stuff is for me to access it.
There is absolutely zero chance I find something interesting on Discord just by "browsing" Discord. I have to be in a community that already exists elsewhere to get the Discord server link or just accidentally stumble upon the server link somewhere other than Discord.
And If I do find an interesting Discord that is active, forget about seeing what people were talking about before.
All the interesting and or useful stuff posted on Discord is completely walled off and hidden away and might as well not exist after it was posted. I'm never going to find a Discord thread when browsing for something on the internet.
I genuinely think Discord is one of the more terrible things that has happened to the internet and the fact that it is replacing forums is a damn shame.
Everything you just said is, through another lens, the boons of Discord. Lack of discoverability and permanence are a big part of why communities are moving and forming there.
Though there may be some very good information locked behind unsearchable discord servers, and that won't be publicly archived for the greater good (not that most of reddit isn't forgettable).
The good and bad, I guess.
99% of the population hasn't a clue what Discord is/does
I think the only people who don't know what discord anymore is the 50+ crowd. Atleast 50% of the randos I talk with online have discord as their preferred method for texting and voice communication and immediately want to switch to it if possible. And if older people actually cared about doxxing themselves with every conversation they would probably have a higher percentage too.
I don't know what the right way to handle intersecting identities is.
Most of my online identities were started when I was in college and was happy to have them tied to my real name. (This is also when Facebook was popular, still good, and college-kids-only.) Since then, cancel culture et. al. has made me more wary of having my identity-adjacent usernames show up in hobbies like gaming.
If I want to be myname in some Discord servers and anonoguy in others, is there a safe way to enforce that boundary? What about if I want to work on gaming-related open source projects or 3D prints?
As the internet moves to logged-in-and-social-by-default, it's hard to know which identity to use for which service. Moreover, when things are constantly leaking/being hacked, I don't know that I want any service to know that anonoguy and myname are personas of the same individual.
And as LLMs become the standard, I'm not sure any of this is defensible. I imagine in a decade's time, it will be trivial for an LLM to go "this account and that account have similar interests/references/ways of typing - they must be the same person."
He is not wrong though a bit off. Discord has 200MAU. So 97% of the global population probably have no idea what Discord is.
People massively underestimate the scale of whatsapp/facebook/tiktok (billions of MAU)
I'm (barely) under 50, but I kind of hate it. I have no idea how to handle the un-threaded flood of messages, and much prefer something like Reddit, message boards, or even FB groups. I felt the same way about IRC back in the day and never got into it.
I use Slack at work, but at least there I have a workable plan: no notifications for most channels, read or at least skim all messages in every channel by EOD, don't read it outside of business hours unless I get a DM. Also, absolutely never join the chatty #random type channels.
As someone with two teenage kids, I would wager that this is highly age-dependent, and that it is exactly reversed the younger you go. My guess is 99% of the under-25 population uses Discord daily and has never had a Facebook account.
In which country? The young adults in my UK family aren't using Discord. They don't use Facebook (except to keep up with older family/associates) either though.
US. What are they using in UK? WhatsApp? That kinda counts as Facebook, I suppose. But then again, is WhatsApp really a direct competitor with Discord?
By the numbers, Discord is definitely more popular in the US, though it is pretty popular in the UK too.
Are you sure they don't? How would you know? Every intern I've worked with uses discord
Your experience (as a single data point) doesn't mean that everyone the age of the interns you work with uses Discord.
I'm responding to his personal datapoint with my own. I agree with you though..
The majority of the population has no idea what the trendsetters are doing before it becomes mainstream.
But if you include other group msg platforms as the same thing (whatsapp, fb messenger, etc) i imagine most people know.
I think there's a much higher barrier to entry to Discord than Facebook. It won't become mainstream unless it significantly changes.
Which is likely why it's so good still. The usenet before the eternal September.
You probably mean, 99% of anyone older than 25.
I am 77.
That's amazing. Wishing you well, and thank you for all your contributions!
Very kind of you.
Discord is the 'AOL (1990s)' of the 2020s. (clearly aspects where that fails, but as a social media?)
In the US this is likely a wildly high overestimate because a huge percentage of the population plays video games at least casually and it has a very large mindshare (if not necessarily daily use for everyone) in that domain.
Moving into things like sports and what we would've called the "general blogosphere" in 2010 quite rapidly too.
I kinda hate it since it's hard to discover, but at least Google can't direct a million bots to it either that easily yet...
Given that I recently joined a leatherworking Discord comprised of individuals pretty much the exact opposite of my demographic, I believe this is just plain wrong.
My guess would be near half, probably a 60/40 split.
> 3. Post history being public meant that you could get banned/brigaded for your comments on a totally different subreddit (i.e. bots autobanning you on one subreddit for posting on another subreddit).
You can make it private now. Personally I think this is a bit of a misfeature since it ends up helping all the low-activity users showing up to post political agitprop in local subreddits, thinly-veiled advertisers, etc., but they changed it.
It's not really, you can just Google search and find all their posts and comments.
Sure, you can do that. It’s harder and not collated in the same way though.
You can just whack space a couple of times in the search field on a user profile on the "new" reddit (www. or sh.reddit) and hit Enter
There is also Project Arctic Shift.
I wonder if the act of switching between discord servers works better with our homo erectus brains. You visit your sister who moved to the next village over, and you hang out in that context until it’s time to go home. You go hang out with the stone shapers because you’re a Neolithic nerd and you think rocks are cool but you have the find motor skills of a dying walrus.
Having all of your social circle mashed together on the internet is like a family reunion at a convention in the same room as your high school reunion. It’s… a lot.
I think this is almost certainly true. People aren’t built to be acceptable to an audience the size of a football stadium, they’re built to be acceptable to a hundred or so people at a time. If you can comfortably context-switch, it’s probably a much easier lifestyle.
I know that for me, at least, I like having one server where the comedy is not PC, one server where people seem to be a little more philosophical, one server for my real life friends, one server full of leftoids and one server full of rightards, etc.
It's funny to see how communities shard.
In the plastic instrument games genre, there are some Discords where any wisp of using commercial music will be met with a stern reaction and potential ban. There are others that will link you to Drives full of thousands of songs from old games. The same people are in both groups.
Sort of like the people who work in big tech and the people who post on Hacker News. You'd think the intersection is an empty set, but it's probably pretty large.
The problem about this, for me, is discoverability. I have loads of hobbies that I'd love to engage with the communities of, but how do you engage with servers of that size without actively being invited to them?
Whatsapp, viber, line and tg groups are very much a thing too. Everybody is a chat of their apartment complex and district it seems
Why doesn’t Signal have the same mindspace that these (imo) marginal apps have? It’s actually private. I wonder if people find it hard to use or something…
Does Signal scale?
Until recently, I think the only way to join a Signal was to be explicitly added by a member. It doesn't have all the channels etc. of something like Discord.
It doesn't have enough mindshare by normies either. In San Francisco, my entire social graph was on Signal. In NYC, I'm the weirdo that uses Signal for everything. Most locals seem to only use it for things that they explicitly want to be private. Among Euro friends, only the ones with ties to the US/tech industry use it.
Won't disagree about channels and mindshare, but will note that Signal got public group links in 2020, not that recent.
https://signal.org/blog/group-links/
Signal by design doesn't have moderation and server-side conversations, it's not suitable for large groups.
Signal doesn’t have channels (text, voice) which I think is a big one.
It does in the Bay Area
If only Discord weren't so incredibly bloated and full of stupid features aimed at 14-year-old gamers.
Ugh. Sigh.
My rugby team uses Discord for chat and announcements.
It feels…gross…inappropriate…it feels weird to use a UI covered in green gamer UI slime.
https://imgur.com/a/eoa8arH
"Content Not Available Content not available in your region.
Learn more about Imgur access in the United Kingdom"
God I hate the modern internet.
I'd actually flip that and suggest that people stop trying to use Discord for things that aren't aligned with Discord's product UI/UX priorities!
Discord is what it is, and my teenage kids love it. However I'm constantly baffled by it LOL.
I'm amazed Discord hasn't launched a corporate version of thier software yet, or that Slack hasn't seen the potential of static voice channels.
Or just not a buggy piece of crap. It’s more stable than it used to be, but I still run into random problems here and there. Much more often than with any other piece of software I use regularly, but I suppose most are becoming web apps anyways…
I keep Discord running in a Firefox tab. It typically only goes down when I have to restart the browser and I often have it up for weeks.
everytime discord ask me to claim this account i just quit the app. they operate in some bs tech realm that no other service does.
Subreddits ultimately took over when Usenet moderation failed to keep up. I had chat groups before the Web was really even a thing and they lived on until things like Slashdot and Digg took the reins.
Discord is IRC, just with modern features.
I wonder if there are any old school protocols out there to create a huge business around by just centralizing them and offering features people have been asking for decades.
Probably not.
Slack had the ability to be Discord, but they explicitly decided they wanted to be business-only.
React was the first open-source community I knew of that outgrew/got kicked off of Slack and moved to Discord. Now, it seems Slack is only used by companies, and occasionally by smaller groups (apartment buildings, school parents, etc) where someone in the group knows Slack from work and doesn't know it's hostile to non-businesses.
Discord was the opposite. I was working on an open source initiative at Google at the time, and the Discord folks openly welcomed us. They even gave us someone's contact info, in case we had needs they weren't addressing. This was when it was still targeted just for gaming, but they were very welcoming of OSS projects using it too!
As I write this, I realize that Discord is what "Google Apps for your Domain" was and Slack is the "Google Workspace" it became.
finger comes to mind, LinkedIn is almost a shit version of this
It's more of a bad IRC replacement than a reddit one.
One thing that's having a little comeback is the email newsletter (see Beehiiv). There's something nice about being able to get exactly what you signed up for and nothing more. No ads, no recommended content, no infinite scroll.
Yeah ever since email spam filters have been effective, email can now work as a social network. I genuinely think it's an untapped opportunity for the next "great thing".
It's funny how things change but stay the same. I cut my teeth online in the mid nineties with usenet and IRC. When reddit got big, subreddits always reminded me of usenet groups. Now Discord is big and reminds me of IRC. Substack reminds me of personal blogs. Twitter/X sort of reminds me of ICQ/AIM.
None of the numbers I've seen on web usage, platform usage, etc. indicate people are significantly pulling away from online lives. Though, there has been a slight dip in daily social media browsing time in the last couple of years (of course, it also follows the end of the pandemic, and it hasn't ceded back to where it was prior).
That does sound like a rather charmed life though. Could also be a sign that people are reverting to using the social internet apart from their irl acquaintances as well.
Linking up with all of our irl acquaintances through the public web was a terrible mistake imo. Seeking privacy can mean many different things.
I think the platforms have changed. FB used to be 100% posts by people you know. I opened it today, and maybe 1 out of 50 posts were by someone i know, the rest was "trending" content.
Its essentially an entirely different website now.
For what it is worth, here is my experience with Facebook, [a platform that I have learnt to love after my Twitter ban]: I go to the main page, I immediately click the magnifying lens, so I get the list of unread posts of the 10to20 groups I follow. I read them quickly. Then leave. I do that, on a daily basis. Time spent: usually 20 minutes.
Reddit is 99% search only. I go there only on a purpose. [might be replaced by Gemini, eventually]
HN and Alterslash are probably the only source of random info that I still consume.
May be that information containment is a reaction to my 15+ years of addiction to [the good old] Twitter. Or because I have reached age 50.
But the consequence is that I get the news late, and usually because of a search I did. Not because of a proactive algorithm.
Additional thought: in the end I suppose my information un-déluge is the proof that algorithms eventually failed to deliver [i.e point me at things meaningful to me]. The biggest example is Spotify proposals. That is 1% of my music discovery, whereas traditional non-commercial radios and dedicated podcasts are [human curated and] much more diverse.
I knocked up a browser plugin that, whenever I land on / redirects me to /?filter=all&sk=h_chr
It's a much less sticky place, now.
Nice!
Why does that look familiar?
Some web wrappers forFB on Android must use that or similar.
Would it show up in the numbers on web usage, platform usage, etc? People who do this drop out of the sample - they don't show up in the numbers. As far as your stat gathering is concerned, they don't exist.
If you're actually doing a census of people and asking about their web usage and social habits, it'd show up. So maybe Google or Facebook has the data if they were to do say cohort analysis on Google Analytics or Chrome History or Facebook beacon logs, counting specifically the number of total unique Internet users that used to visit social media but no longer do. But such an analysis would require SVP-level privacy approval (because it joins together personal, non-anonymized data across multiple products), and why would an executive commission a study that potentially tells them that their job is in danger and their employer is making a mistake by employing them? And if they did, why would they ever publicize the results?
AFAIK, most of the major public-facing analytics platforms work by sampling their users. If their users are voluntarily choosing not to engage with the platform that their sampling runs on, they by definition cannot measure that change. They just become a biased sample that excludes specifically the population they're trying to measure.
But they still READ. So, if you 'interact' (and by that I mean do any write-like action, like commenting, posting, liking, whatever) less, that's gonna show up.
They don't, at least not necessarily. I look at my HN history and it's 13 hours ago, 6 days ago, 8 days ago, 13 days ago. Fifteen years ago I was #2 on the leaderboard (itself now gone, it listed users by total comment karma) and would post about 4-5 times a day. Now when I'm not posting, I'm actually not on the site and not reading replies. I just don't have time.
I think a decent-sized subset of Millennials have basically aged out of the time-surplus years of the early 20s and are now busy with kids and careers and families. And they aren't being replaced by the new 20-somethings, at least not on social media of the same form. The kids are still on text messages and Whatsapp and Discord and Roblox and Google Docs (!!), but they aren't interested in getting on the public Internet, and if they are, their parents won't let them.
Are bots included in those numbers?
How about distinct public posts per day per user?
My experience is that consumption is as high as ever, but the median person's non-private sharing is down.
My two kids absolutely do not trust open social media (thankfully). My 16 year old has a IMessage group with his friends as well as a discord and that’s it. My 13 year old just uses iMessage with his friend group. My wife and I have taught them the risks of social media but never to the degree of their current distrust. They seem to have picked it ip on their own and want no part of X, insta, TikTok or anything else. They just want to talk to the friends they know.
> Our 30-year bender of putting our lives online and blurring the public and the private has finally ended
I wish you were right. We took our kid to a stage show she really wanted to see. People round us kept checking their phones. They weren’t even really checking them. They held them and would turn the screen on and off, lighting the place up.
They couldn’t be without them for more than 5 minutes. This, after 30 mins of painful selfies before the show. It’s awful.
I don't think the vibe shift they're describing has fully taken place yet, but I think the foundations have been laid and it's started. It's probably going to be a while and take further societal changes to fully come into fruition, though.
AR glasses coupled with a sophisticated input device (fingertap? tounguetap?) will eventually be able to fully replace a touchscreen interface. And from then on it'll eventually become dated and rude to resort to pulling out touch screens during a social event.
Mind you, inconsiderate people will be as distracted as ever, and will continue to halfheartedly pretend they're listening to those around them. They'll just need to find a new method to achieve maximal obnoxiousness.
…”a sophisticated input device (fingertap? tounguetap?)”
My money is on subvocalization.
Many people are simultaneously sharing to the broader internet less (the claim you're responding to) AND more addicted to media shared by the ones who DO share stuff then ever (the claim you're making).
The alert checking is a thing.
But I’ve noticed with my 14 year old son and his friends that they are all about Snap and iMessage. Instagram and TikTok are their public fora.
People didn’t leave social media, social media left them. Instagram used to show your friends, not it shows algorithmic content. Same for the other networks. People are still there but it’s now the new tv.
Everyone should be simply posting algorithmic content to Facebook. Screenshots, etc not giving them your own life stuff imo. We need to push back on personalized feeds. Share a high percentage of what you see so that there is a digital commons and not just some island for each person.
Social media platform used to be less about passive consumption.
It's the people with money, houses, and kids that departed the 'simple local' lifestyle when the Internet and social media become large. It's them that are re-discovering the joys of the simple local lifestyle.
The simple local lifestyle is that which was lived by all of humanity for all of history up until the last ~75 years (give or take).
> The simple local lifestyle is that which was lived by all of humanity for all of history up until the last ~75 years (give or take).
A percentage of people still traveled, communicated, traded and migrated to other places in the past. Cities were a mix of lots of people, commerce, news. It was just slower and a smaller percentage. Look at the letters of Paul in the bible. He was writing to different communities around the Roman Empire, and traveled to them when he could.
Looking at the big picture, trade, communication and migration are the norm over human history. We colonized the world before the Industrial Revolution, some humans did it thousands of years prior.
I'd say it was much shorter than 30 years. Facebook opened to the public in 2006, and I was surprised to learn Myspace (the first "normie" space on the Web) isn't much older. And before that your digital persona was separate from your offline persona, unless you were one of the grognards with a faculty .edu address.
What’s really interesting to me is how this coincides with a larger push to break up more and more ties that kept our society going for the last 30–50 years. Look at what’s happening to globalization and the push to near-shore. Look at the fragmentation of media into private channels and closed groups, the erosion of shared narratives, and the growing skepticism toward institutions that used to act as connective tissue.
Individually, many of these shifts make sense: resilience over efficiency, trust over reach, local over global. But collectively they point to a world that is becoming more segmented, less interoperable, and harder to coordinate at scale. If fewer people participate in shared public spaces, economic, cultural, or informational, it’s not just advertising models that break, but the assumptions underpinning growth, politics, and even social cohesion.
That doesn’t necessarily mean collapse, but it does suggest a lower energy equilibrium: slower growth, fewer mass phenomena, more parallel realities. The open question is whether we can rebuild new forms of shared infrastructure and trust at smaller scales—or whether we simply learn to live with a more fragmented, quieter, and less synchronized society.
That doesn't really sound bad to me. I think we expanded our social reach too far and need to scale back to where we can feel like we have an impact and our voice matters.
The brief period where I could check Facebook and reliably find someone's name I forgot or figure out how to contact people or invite them to a gathering was pretty nice. Now everyone's on fifty apps I don't use, or installed but never remember to check. Oh well. Sorry, too stimulating for me to join your Discord and get hundreds of notifications, most of which don't concern me at all.
I’ve known a lot of neurodivergent and LGBT people, and I was in my late teens when The Internet happened and a young adult when the Web happened.
If you’re not within a couple standard deviations of boring, local living is isolating. Al Gore gave a mea culpa speech at one point because he thought, as a Senator, that legislating to give everyone the Internet would halt the rural brain drain but it had the opposite effect. People learned that they weren’t alone, they were just surrounded by (my words, not his) idiots and so they moved to where their people were. They voted with their feet in droves.
Ultimately, the Internet is good for support. It lets you find people who have the same obscure cancer your child has. Who are dealing with the same sort of neuroses your mom has. Who are being defrauded by a corporation in the same way. Who have the same feelings that the people around you ridicule you for even the hint of having. It lets these people find the patterns, see other people are feeling the same things they do, stop being gaslit.
Everything else has become about dopamine and money. And for those parts we should definitely unplug. But without forums or chat threads that same feeling of being The Other comes back.
Yeah that's absolutely true that it was a lifeline for people who were isolated and that's less true with how ephemeral everything is now.
> people don't want to be online, don't trust social media, don't really trust any media, and are living simple local lives with a small circle of friends that they get together with regularly in person.
Not true. People post their entire lives (OK not entire, but the positive parts) on social media every day for the public to see.
> people don't want to be online, don't trust social media, don't really trust any media, and are living simple local lives with a small circle of friends that they get together with regularly in person.
maaaaybe 2% of the people…
> Most of my friends have money, houses
Yeah, these are genuinely the only people worth advertising to anymore in a practical sense, if you are selling something non-essential.
Because of the K shaped economy a lot of people in the US are spending whatever they make on bare essentials like rent, food and paying off debt like student loans and consumer debt.
Advertise to those masses all you want, on whatever platforms you want, cant get water from a stone.
From my own experience as one grows over their 30's, or probably much older, to get to what you mentioned "money, houses, kids, friends", these ads pretty much don't target u very effectively any ways because one's priorities are shifted and you care more about other things than what the attention economy is all about. IOW these ads all about the people who have attention to spare.
> WhatsApp
This one is on its way to becoming part of the social media ecosystem. That's what the "Updates" feature is.
To get an idea of what it will look like, check out Instagram users who use it for both 1:1 messaging and social media (1:many) features. Which (again anecdotally) is widely used in younger generations.
Few of my friends use Instagram or TikTok, but I think we're just outliers. I see many (young) users, all the time, whenever I'm on the train.
> It's an interesting thought experiment to explore what it means if that actually is the new normal, and people are not consuming media or much of anything, or even if the people who are still addicted to social media are now tapped out and don't have any more disposable income left to spend.
Even if they do have disposable income to spend, the lack of working ads means that they're getting their vendors in a different way.
Some speculation follows: If advertisements as the main driver of sales went away, wouldn't that help smaller players gain a foothold against incumbents? Because, while incumbents can use their war chest to push all newcomers to page 2 of the results. If the awareness is coming from somewhere else, being on page 2 of the results doesn't matter anymore, because no one is even seeing page 1 of the results anyway!
You just reminded me that a few years ago I was doing some product research and one of the questions I'd ask people was what technical communities they turned to regularly. To keep up with news, if they had a question to ask they needed an answer to (this was pre-LLM hype days). HN, Reddit, StackOverflow, and various Slack communities dominated the results for people I spoke to in the USA. I was shocked by how much private WhatsApp groups dominated amongst the respondents from Africa (Nigeria representing the overwhelming majority of people who I spoke to).
At the time it felt to me they were missing out on so many other useful resources. Maybe I was wrong. It's interesting to see things trending in a similar direction now.
I am a gen-z and most of my peers look at me weird when I express the same. It was once cool to have social media and presence -- I was only 8 when I made a facebook account. But now, things are different. I actively avoid social media and don't like to show myself online anywhere other than my personal website.
Meta appears to believe this, and so is pushing chatbot integration into private chats on Messenger and WhatsApp; presumably that will be the vector by which they push product advertisements.
> Our 30-year bender of putting our lives online and blurring the public and the private has finally ended: people don't want to be online, don't trust social media, don't really trust any media, and are living simple local lives with a small circle of friends that they get together with regularly in person.
That's a nice narrative, but its simplicity clashes with reality.
> my anecdotal experience, it's moved to private, trust-based channels: iMessage, WhatsApp, email, face-to-face interactions
I can attest to this based on my circle of friends and acquaintances. Email not so much but yeah WA etc. I think people are done putting content that matters to them on public platforms. So all we see now on FB/Insta is memes, influencers or ads.
I regularly do improv every week, which is essentially improvised live theater. So some time is spent not watching youtube or some sort of electronic intermediaries.
Which is actually pretty odd, because improvisational comedy as we know it today is younger than the film industry.
> If everybody bought only what they needed and ignored all the advertisements, our present level of economic activity would plunge.
Why would it plunge instead of re-focusing on things that are intrinsically important?
> Why would it plunge instead of re-focusing on things that are intrinsically important?
Because a lot of the economy is focused on creating and maintaining a surplus[1]: make people buy things that they don't really need, make them discard and replace things that they've been convinced are no longer worth it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus%3A_Terrorized_into_Bei...
That's the current state yes. But that doesn't mean it's the only possible state. If that wasteful consumption disappear, would anyone be worse off? Hardly. But it would free up capacity to do more actually useful and valuable things. Sounds like a win to me.
100% this. I used to be a "digital native". I guess I have migrated away from my native lands and now I am a boring old local again.
> In my anecdotal experience, it's moved to private, trust-based channels
The Return of Content Curation. Peer-to-peer: research, retrieval, review.
100% this. I remember when I took advantage of being online and not really competing in SEO, it was simply a matter of being real. At the time, I didn’t realize it was just arbitrage: I was naturally in a space with fewer participants and most organizations didn’t even know the rules yet.
Now that advantage is completely gone, and I have to build business the way it’s always been done in history: walking the streets while the online "broadcasted" world is a massive distraction.
I think you're correct to a degree. Instututions like social media and google ads were given a very generous chance, we gave them our money and attention, they gave us scams (especially facebook) and enshittification.
The loss of faith in institutions takes quite a long time to occur but I think it will be quite a bit of effort to reverse.
This is 100% what I see too.
> If everybody bought only what they needed and ignored all the advertisements, our present level of economic activity would plunge.
Shh! One must never question the ponzi scheme.
> The person kept making the comment that she couldn't see/find the puck and it made it frustrating to watch.
Lifelong hockey fan, I never understood this complaint. I believe it was FOX that did the 'highlight the puck' thing for a few years in the 1990's.
You can't see the ball in American football, either.
But you don't need to. The guy that's running and everyone is trying to tackle? He has the ball. Just like the guy skating across the ice with his stick on the ground? He's got the puck.
When you CAN see the puck/ball, either someone lost control of it, or they're shooting/throwing/passing it.
You're right - it was called FoxTrax, it's a fairly interesting piece of engineering.
It's pretty wild they were able to convince the NHL to use a modified puck with a battery and PCB inside, all so American viewers could better follow the action.
It was not well received in Canada :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax
Well, the current puck still has emitters inside of it.
> [1] Puck and Player Tracking became fully operational in 2021-22, with up to 20 cameras in each arena and infrared emitters in each puck and sweater.
The player tracking is fairly easy to see; there's often an airtag sized bump on a player's jersey.
The puck tracking can be a bit more difficult but sometimes the puck looks like it's melting the ice behind it. That's just them giving it a grey shadow instead of the neon shadow.
[1]: https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-edge-launches-website-for-puck-...
It was not well received anywhere. However, in a bit of defense of the idea, TV at that time was still NTSC (~480p resolution at 24 frames/s) and it was pretty hard to see the puck even if you knew where it was.
Just a nitpick: analog NTSC was roughly 480i at (just under) 30 FPS. The latter is significant, as 3:2 pulldown (as would have been necessary if the station's cameras were scanning at 24 FPS) would have introduced judder and made tracking even harder. To its credit, interlacing also improved motion clarity at the expense of loss of detail, but whether that's a net benefit ultimately amounts to a matter of preference.
As someone with low vision I loved when they added that and missed it when it was gone.
I can't see the puck at all at a game and have to be very close to a television to see whats going on.
As a result most sports are boring.
> You can't see the ball in American football, either.
The average play must be what, like 5 seconds? So if you lose where the ball is you're not going to be confused for long.
In far fewer than five seconds, one team can suddenly have the upper hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O34BnFu8Kk
What I’ve always found fascinating is that I could always clearly see the puck in any stadium, no matter how high up I sat. It was impossible to miss.
However, when watching hockey on TV, it’s incredibly difficult to see the damn thing.
As a gamer this seems obvious to me. It's long been clear to me that our eyes are very adept at processing high-speed motion. Even the first 120Hz LCD gaming monitor, as sucky as it was, was miles bette than the 60 Hz on the market.
So while technically our eyes might not discern individual frames higher than 25 FPS or so, our brain can absolutely process data from a much higher effeice framerate. The motion blur fast thing naturally produce for example, provides critical context clues.
In gaming, sure 240 Hz won't help you see more as such, but it allows your eyes to do what they naturally do and give a much improved experience of fluidity and superior motion prediction.
I find this interesting - before we switched from 5/4 aspect ratio, it was hard to find the puck because the camera was always chasing - but if you know hockey (e.g., watch enough of it) there are a lot of cues about where the puck is or will be, now that we have a wider aspect ratio.
The effect is so powerful, it fools professionals and the camera-operator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fioVbt7eF8
Even when the technique is known, everyone remains susceptible (the victim team in the above video is the trickster here): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSNTfFg4XW0
pretty common with my crowd of fans to even get a little giddy when the play is so deceptive that it fakes out the camera man and they dont realize theyre focused on the wrong player until a second or two passes
That's the exception. not the rule.
So yes, in "trick" plays you can't see the ball. But neither can the defense.
Having watched hockey AND US football my entire life, you can't compare the two. Totally different styles of sports and thus comparing your ability to see the 2 doesn't make sense.
to add: There has never been a football in history that had the ball going from one end of the field to the other and back. And yet, this happpens in hockey regularly and within seconds.
> American football
handegg*
Also:
basketball -> handball
hockey -> stickball
volleyball -> handball
rugby -> handegg
baseball -> stickball
cricket -> stickball
golf -> stickball
Hopefully this will finally appease the football literalists and make things simpler for you all to understand :)
I like the basketball, volleyball, and baseball way where the noun before ball has some leeway but should be clearly identified with an aspect of the sport.
football -> tackleball rugby -> tossball cricket -> paddleball golf -> clubball hockey -> icepuck
Handball’s already taken though.
I find it werid that you keep calling soccer football.
The leading theory for the etymology of the “foot” in “football” is because it’s played on foot unlike, say, jousting or polo.
It gets the name from "rugby football" from the time where both rugby and international football ("soccer") were considered related sports and often shared rules and associations (such as the London Football Association, from which Princeton imported rules to the US, and which eventually started to split as the sports split further).
The change in shape from a round ball to the "handegg" eventually derived from the first American innovation in "rugby football" of the forward pass. Even with the forward pass, the game required kicks into goals for a long while with the "touchdown" a further later innovation (though also influenced by reimporting rugby rules, as it relates to the rugby "try"). Kick offs, punts, field goals, and extra point attempts all still vestigially remain from the rugby origins even as most of the play in between them changed drastically.
American Football is called "football" because it evolved from the "football family". It's like using the term "romance language": Spanish and Italian sound very different today, but they both share roots in Latin. They've also both changed a lot since the days when Latin was a living language.
> You can't see the ball in American football, either.
Tell me you're not from the US without telling me. This is apples and oranges.
Unless it's a trick play, you 100% know where the ball is.
How many times in football does the ball go from one end to the other and back? Never. In hockey that happens regularly, and in seconds. That's why comparing them in this context isn't correct.
I'd go a step further and say the ball/puck is not the interesting thing to watch.
Imagine if you couldn't see the players, and just saw the puck. Would that be interesting at all?
Think about tennis. There is the trope of people's eyes going back and forth following the ball, but I don't think they are following the ball directly. They are going back and forth looking at the person who is going to hit the ball.
I think you might be conflating knowing where the puck is with being able to fix your eyes on the puck at all times. The complaint is usually about the former. People are complaining that they don't know where the puck is.
you dont know what you dont know. walking into hockey for the first time, you may think you should be looking for the puck.
but really, what you want to look for is how the players are moving. it's sort of a "which one is different from all the others." one person will clearly be moving in a completely unique way, as the others chase them or vie to get open or get in somebodys way. to acomplish this identification, youre looking at their legs, shoulders, hands, feet, and heads.
> Imagine if you couldn't see the players, and just saw the puck. Would that be interesting at all?
Honestly, I don't know. Is it really the players people care most about? More than the score? The players come in and out of teams so often that caring about any specific player seems strange. Teams seem more important. I suspect that just seeing colored sticks (with colors signifying the team) and the puck would probably work just as well but then I don't get the appeal of watching sports in the first place.
> ...vertical, shortform video. Not sure how that plays out in terms of advertising...
I have seen a comment about them being terrible for advertising, it looks like a "good" idea but it is not.
The problem is that the attention of people watching these videos drop to almost zero, too much is happening in a too short amount of time, and as a result nothing is remembered, including the ads. It is a very good deal for whoever is monetizing this content, they show a lot of ads, plenty of revenue, but not for those who are paying for the ads. It is like subliminal messages, "good" idea, but not very effective. For ads to work, people need to pay attention.
I don't know how ads in chatbots will turn out and what form it will take, but I think it is inevitable.
It's kinda interesting to see how advertising is evolving. I'll mindlessly scroll Instagram reels once in a while and every other reel is an ad with the sponsored tag, with an obvious thing being sold and advertised. A fair amount of non-"ads" are influencers or celebrities promoting a product on their personal IGs with the #ad.
It's like advertising and social media are slowly merging together.
I couldn't say how effective it is. Who knows how much they paid that influencer and how much revenue it drives. But it sure is common.
For sure, I've been hesitantly awaiting ChatGPT's first "sponsored" reply, or at least, one that features a "sponsored" product or link.
Viber already does something similar, by catching on a keyword in your reply and splashing an ad.
E.g., around here, "happy holidays" would splash an ad for Jacobs coffee.
How would you know?
They are probably going to make them obvious at first, like with Google search.
But they can also make it more pernicious. For example by having companies pay them so that they can train their AI on their products, with regular updates. Not technically an ad, but the AI will be more aware of their products so that they are more likely to be recommended to the user. In other words, that's paying for the right to advertise to the AI rather than to advertise to consumers directly.
probably, probably and more probably.
Why would they ever make it obvious? It makes no sense. google just had the luck of political inaction, and eventually enshitified it further to the point where you might not know it was an ad.
For the same reasons why Google did it in the first place.
To not undermine trust into their product and because ads are lower quality than organic results, and by making them indistinguishable, it will make their product worse.
The chatbot market is still competitive, and while users may tolerate ads alongside their answers, they may not tolerate lower quality answers (that is ads disguised as answers). With Google search, they can get away with it because they are still the best even with the enshitification.
There is another reason why it is in their best interest to make it really obvious there are ads. Chatbots want you to pay directly, sometimes hundreds of dollars a month, they are not getting that kind of money with ads, so obnoxious ads are also a way to say "hey look, if you pay, you won't get ads". It doesn't mean ads won't make a comeback in paid tiers later, but not initially.
So, yes, lots of "probably", but my guess would go towards the first ads being obvious and flashy rather than subtle.
but google did erode trust in their product, and the american government went after them, so they "made it more obvious" which still really didnt change that most people dont care if something is sponsored and just look at the first result.
it's something that continually needs to be reenforced again and again. somebody will be made example of.
This is a great analogy and approach!
One rough heuristic I use is people-watching on the subway. Just a quick glance from a distance at their phones. What are they actually looking at? (Yeah I know it's a bit nosy...)
I see: short-form video, WhatsApp/Messaging, YouTube long-format - in that order.
It's short form video for sure. My wife just got 4 WhatsApp messages from our new Instagram campaign in 1 hour. Spent $1.50 so far.
So Zuckerberg is the ref now?
AI SEO is where the attention is going, with ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini/Google AI Overviews replacing the need for people to visit websites
I don't know why people are down-voting it. You might not like it, you may not think it's good. But this is absolutely happening and there's a lot of data out there about it.
how is AI seo different from regular SEO? Behind the LLM is a search function, naturally the same queries and keywords would work for both search and LLMs, no?
It's unnatural to search an LLM for a product. It's why Alexa never became a shopping portal.
Best way to get the word out about a product now is through an influencer in the space.
-- Edit:
Show of hands for anyone using ChatGPT to shop. Be honest.
People don't even use Google to shop. They try to find something either (1) by brand name, eg. "iphone" or (2) generically by category, eg. "best cold weather tent".
In the former case, Google used their enormous, antitrust flaunting power and 90% browser marketshare to turn the URL bar into a competitive trademark bidding dragnet. Apple pays out the nose for the iPhone spot. For every click. And every other major corporation selling to business or consumer does the same. This is the source of Google's enormous wealth. Google is a middle man. You cannot conceivably get to a brand or product without paying the Google tax.
In the latter case, when people try to look up blogs and reviews and Reddit posts to compare products, Google gets in the way and inserts themselves into the flow. If LLMs make this experience even shittier, there won't be upstream content to source as no reward will reach the people providing the value. It will naturally atrophy over time.
As a new sales channel, young people are buying content off of TikTok and Instagram directly now. When they see influencers using products they like, it leads to massive sales volume. New unicorn consumer businesses are being minted regularly from this.
Alexa never became a good shopping portal because voice interfaces regularly mishear you, so there was always a lot of doubt about what it might be ordering, and also has anyone except the obscenely rich ever gone "yes, the first result, that's always fine, no I will not bother looking at any of the prices on any of the results"? Hence the joke about the reason why Amazon bought Whole Foods being that Bezos said one day "Alexa, buy me something from Whole Foods" and Alexa mishearing it as "Buy Whole Foods".
LLMs are not limited to voice interfaces. You absolutely can use ChatGPT as a search engine if you want to: it does give you results you can compare, telling you about pros and cons of various options, and you can discuss with it what your end-goals are and have it turn a vague idea into a shopping list (that may or may not be complete for your project).
I don't have any reason to think these are the best, ChatGPT is not a storefront and OpenAI does not have a long history as a search engine, but it absolutely can be used this way.
Wow - than at least my behavior - and that of quite an impressive amount of non tech people in my circle of acquaintances - are "unnatural".
I know people who took a photo of their car's driver side mirror cap (the thing that is on the opposite of the drivers side mirror and often colored like the rest of the car) - and asked chatGPT to search for the part. Because they were not able to navigate the respective auto parts portals.
I myself had perplexity generate a comparison report for different electric cars in a specific price range to get a first rough understanding of the used eCar market. Including links to respective models in used car sites.
Using Kagi for the few regular searches I need to do nowadays, Claude Code on the commandline for any other extended research/searches, I actually only use Google nowadays when I use the Google song detection function. Like Shazam - I just find this thing to be on my phone, so no need for an additional app.
I could give you a lot of additional examples from acquaintances and family - esp. from the not so tech people. Google is catching up, though. So - I think, with habits being hard to break, most people find Google good enough for quite a long time to come.
> and asked chatGPT to search for the part. Because they were not able to navigate the respective auto parts portals.
I do that, 10 years already, using Google, on a specific website. Website owners are just so very, very bad at making search working. Haven't even tried using ChatGPT for it.
> Show of hands for anyone using ChatGPT to shop. Be honest.
I recently used ChatGPT to compare headphones before buying them, although the workflow there was a bit manual; I took some headphones that I had in mind off a cursory search off Amazon, had ChatGPT produce a summary of the differences and then picked the "best" one.
I'd assume this happens a lot more, I can easily someone doing, produce a list of [product category X] under < $Y, then use follow-up queries, etc.
> As a new sales channel, young people are buying content off of TikTok and Instagram directly now.
I assume this would only work for the things that influencers can directly sell, e.g. selling makeup to women that way is apparently a thing; for other products that are not impulse-buys, ChatGPT is a perfectly reasonable way to shop.
I have used LLMs to find dozens and dozens of products when I didn't know the proper name for the solution or what to look for.
> Show of hands for anyone using ChatGPT to shop. Be honest.
Show of hands for anyone still compiling 500 Amazon reviews by hand…
This won’t necessarily work well in a year (month?),
but up through now?
Absolutely I’ve been using assistants for some shopping purposes.
Searching with llms is the single best use case for it. It is some form of natural language apropos. Ask it what is the best way to have a beautiful and modern website, Vercel will make money and tailwind will receive a visit and gain one more consuming application. Ask it how to be safe, rust will gain more power and influence no matter what originally was your intent. It doesn't need to be justified. Chatgpt said so therefore true (the audience vulnerable to this has established that generative technology==chatgpt)
I used ChatGPT to find a bike for me. It asked good questions, recommended good results, linked me to options and the websites I needed to further research things. I don't do a lot of shopping though so this is one tiny example. If I was looking to actually shop again though I'd use it again. Most of my shopping these days is the grocery store. I don't have a lot of needs.
I might be unusual, I only use LLMs to shop these days.
"What is still considered a highly regarded 35mm film camera for under $400 (used)?"
Of course then I go to eBay…
"Show of hands for anyone using ChatGPT to shop. Be honest."
I use Gemini to help with shopping decisions pretty frequently. It's been very effective and useful for that.
I used Chatgpt to compare product specs. Pretty good to get a rough idea but obviously not reliable.
LLMs are honestly rather amazing for product search and comparison.
Here's a use case for me last week: I'm re-organizing my bathroom sink/vanity, and I want a few counter top organizers to keep things neat and tidy. I have a low mirror, low medicine cabinets, and generally tight spaces to work with and want to maximize storage.
So, I have a 10" wide space and I can't have anything over 16". I want to find a drawer organizer as close to 16" tall without going over, and as close to 10" without going over. Given a choice between the two, I want to bias for more height.
Go to Google or Amazon and try finding that. You're going to be trying permutations of 10x16 and 9x16 and so on, and digging through pages looking for something approximate.
In theory maybe there's some filter options on Amazon that might work, but they're usually incomplete, wrong, or absent. It's a terrible experience even when it's supported.
ChatGPT (or even Amazon's kind of janky Rufus) immediately finds top near-perfect matches for me to choose from. 15-20 minutes of aggravating digging turned into 90s of letting ChatGPT think and search while I was off grabbing a coffee.
> LLMs are honestly rather amazing for product search and comparison.
True, LLMs are quite good in things where I have limited knowledge. It shortens exploration phase considerably. Before, I would need to go to web pages, compare parameters (somewhere), think out why this, not that.
>Show of hands for anyone using ChatGPT to shop. Be honest.
I used it for evaluating air filters. I used to for making shopping lists for food I want to cook.
> It's unnatural to search an LLM for a product. It's why Alexa never became a shopping portal.
There is plenty of evidence that people are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for that too. And it's entirely possible that ChatGPT and others are already being trained to mention some products first or to present them in a more positive light.
This is an analogy that is very appealing, which is precisely why I feel it sends the fundamentally wrong message.
There is not one single puck in the web search field, and we actively don't want that situation in the first place (want no monopoly or cartel). There should be at least 2 if not a ton more. Everyone focusing their attention and resource on a single thing is the absolute worst case scenario.
I also hope the future of search is not where every existing player is looking at. That means there is no disruption happening, money straight dictates the winner and nothing truly innovative is expected.
Even "skating where the puck will be" is essentially following someone else's play. It can be fine, but I'd prefer to focus on the person actually acting on the puck, where they're trying to lead the game.
> The tactics were different during the phonebook days (it was having your business start with the letter "A") as opposed to Google and will be different for the next thing as well.
And to add to this, the dark pattern of the time was to register in the Phone Book as “AAA Your Real Business Name” which was exactly what my first job did.
Bang on. It's advertising, so literally looking at where people are getting their info from is the way to go.
Google searches don't produce good results these days. The enshittification has become too extreme. Google openly admits as much (and further intensifies the enshittification) by placing a huge AI summary above those results.
The answer is self evident. If, before, you were relying on clicks resulting from google searches, today you need to be what an AI recommends when somebody uses an AI like they used to use google. (Users will eventually become more sophisticated though!) Lots of people are using AI like a search engine and getting better results than google gives simply because massive resources are currently being put into training AI, while mere neglect is insufficient to explain how fast Google search results are getting worse.
Is this how AI companies plan to cash in? Accept money from advertisers to promote their products in interactions with their LLM's? Were I an advertiser, I'd be trying to get Anthropic to take my money instead of giving it to Google. AI might be what finally makes it impossible to tell content and ads apart. That's great for advertisers... I guess. Not so great for the rest of us.
> Google searches don't produce good results these days. The enshittification has become too extreme. Google openly admits as much (and further intensifies the enshittification) by placing a huge AI summary above those results.
I haven't asked Google a question it has failed to provide a more than adequate answer to in ... months? years?
And on all my devices, I run google search with &udm=14, so I am not talking about AI summaries. I also have search personalization disabled.
I see a lot of people complaining about this on HN. It simply doesn't match my experience at all, in any way.
Maybe because you have the personalization disabled. My complaint isn't the SEO stuff; that hits me when I search on a tech item I want to learn (I get slammed with crappy vendor blogs), or food recipes (long story about a Sicilian Grandma before the recipe at the end). My complaint with Google is it fights me on keywords, and I have to constantly add quotes, add minuses, and it seems to silently override it.
It's easier to add Reddit at the end to get a more accurate question repeated, and skip the sponsored SEO crap.
So why have personalization enabled?
I don't want a list of links that I have to then click through in a kind of Russian roulette—hoping I don't get some kind of SEO crap.
Google seems relatively good at never giving me SEO crap near the top of most of my search results.
And a list of links to original sources or close to it is precisely what I do want.
If you want an LLM to generate an answer from its training data, that's fine, but go use a different search engine instead of demanding that the one many of us have relied on for decades has to do that.
My experience was quite the opposite, and the reason why I switched to Kagi: any search that was anywhere adjacent to a product would be almost nothing but SEO garbage. Non-product related searches were better, but I also think they had noticeably degraded over the past several years to a decade.
And I actually agree with the last point. While there are entire categories of questions that I now prefer an LLM to to any search engine, when I want a search engine, I specifically do not want LLM summaries, which is another thing I like about Kagi: they allow me to choose when I want to see an LLM summary and to turn off summaries altogether.
(this is really not meant to be an ad for Kagi, I presume that most HN users are familiar with it already and don't need yet another random endorsement, but I honestly don't know how to talk about my experiences with search over the past several years and my dissatisfaction with google without talking about it)
> which is another thing I like about Kagi: they allow me to choose when I want to see an LLM summary and to turn off summaries altogether.
firefox: keyword "g" configured as google search plus &udm=14
firefox: keyword "a" configured as google search without &udm=14
works for me!
I don't believe I was demanding anything of the sort. If you're happy with Google, enjoy. I am adding my own anecdotal experiences to other's (who appear also to have found search lacking for some time now).
You stated that you did not want a list of links. I am not sure what other alternatives there are, but AFAIK, they will all involve LLMs in some way and be a quite different way to present the results of a "search" than traditional search engines.
So, if not that, then what?
> Google openly admits as much (and further intensifies the enshittification) by placing a huge AI summary above those results.
The AI summary is not the problem; you could take it away and the experience would be just as poor.
In fact, the AI summary slightly improves the experience for faster readers.
> Look where everyone is looking
In other words, Google. Google search grows every year despite people are dead sure it's "dead."
[0]: https://sparktoro.com/blog/new-research-google-search-grew-2...
Google search sucks and it's sucking worse all the time. Nobody knows what else to use though so people keep using it. The results are mostly spam and AI slop. If a searcher has to search several times to get information they used to get with a single query suddenly the average number of searches per searcher spikes and it looks like growth I guess. Worse, lots of people are trusting the AI results which is bound to lead them astray with lies and eventually be corrupted with ads/paid manipulation. For now though, the results Google returns are also mostly AI generated crap so at least people save themselves a click.
> From what I can tell, everyone seems to be looking at chatbots
A friend recently explained to me that this trend is awful for newer businesses trying to get into a niche:
* Chatbots give a lot of weight to Wikipedia in their training data.
* Wikipedia demands "notability" for pages being created.
* So non-incumbent businesses have a hard time getting on Wikipedia, and chatbots keep recommending incumbents.
Eventually the solution for this will be you paying the AI company to promote your products or suppress your competitors. Even now, chatbots are a terrible way to get product recommendations. They're trained on way too much ad copy and too many bullshit reviews. As ever, the best thing a company can do to advertise is simply to be excellent at what they do and be very affordable.
The recent Acquired ep on “Alphabet Inc” put it aptly: social media moved into Google’s space, video (reels, “pivot to video”), and social media for socialising moved to message groups, iMessage/Whatsapp/Discord.
Revenue-wise, video ads have always been the sun to print ads peanut m&m.
Look where the pucks going then:
Implication: ChatGPT as a realtime video avatar will hit the jackpot with ads, but not before. Count on the ChatGPT device having a screen for that reason
Nice, I really enjoyed this interpretation of Jobs famous quote. Even getting into the character "I used to be a goalie" was pretty cool as well!
It's moved to AI training sets. If you can't get your product into the training set of a popular model, it's game over.
So maybe the puck is on TV?
Reason I say this is that this guy (Bob Hoffman)
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Ad+Cont...
says people watch ads on TV not the Internet.
> The tactics were different during the phonebook days (it was having your business start with the letter "A") as opposed to Google and will be different for the next thing as well. <
Interesting! I thought, they did it because of the stock-item-list order :-D
Ice hockey player also here. Defence. Pretty neat analogy with Google. :)
"AI" is the next advertising frontier, no question.
People are throwing themselves to feed you personal data. You no longer have to come up with sneaky ways to collect it, or build out their profile from inferred metadata. Less work for you, more accurate profiling, and less risk getting fined by pesky regulation.
Ad campaigns can be much more personal and targeted. You can push them at just the right moment to optimize the chances of conversion. They can be much more persuasive, since chatbots and assistants are deeply trusted. You can dial the sensitivity knob to make them very subtle, or completely blatant, depending on your urgency and client.
If I as someone outside of this hostile industry can think up these scenarios, the world is not ready for what advertising geniuses are cooking up as we speak.
> the world is not ready for what advertising geniuses are cooking up as we speak.
Advertising directed towards AI models, at the very least. If you can get into ChatGPT's weights that McDonalds is the cheapest and tastiest hamburger, how many millions of people would ChatGPT tell that to?
If ChatGPT told you to go to McDonald’s, would you?
Personally, if ChatGPT told me the sky was blue, I’d go out and check. But if you’re someone who takes advice from ChatGPT, maybe? It’s not like I don’t ever go to McDonalds.
yeah, it's always a good time for a egg mcmuffin
Google is far from dead we need grounding of truth, and from what i hear they already have perplexity like answer engine in testing internally.
Skate to where the puck is going
Better to stop playing the game.
--WOPR
“The game” is an emergent property of the human species at scale
Human society cannot exist at this scale without this nested social complexity structure given the biological constraints
So something has to give
Revenue generation via advertising is an emergent property of humanity?
100%, but it's not a direct 1:1 relationship.
First you need agriculture so people tend to settle in one place. After ag comes more specialization, farmers need houses, graineries, and as society grows social specialists in which we'd call government.
These things in an area typically cause the area to grow because of their stability. As they grow you get more than one person/business doing the same line of work and you get more people than fit in ones monkeysphere. At that size you may not know a person that knows what you need to know and start looking further. This is why as cities grow advertising itself becomes an emergent property. Just go to a Roman city and look for dick pavers for example. Then someone will think "Hey, I can give some poor kids a board with a message on it and have them cry out to go to the place that people pay me to advertise" and suddenly you have an emergent property of humanity.
I (mis)attributed an element of pre-destination to the word emergent that apparently doesn't map to the word properly used.
That said, there's a petroglyph (circa 1150-1600 CE) of a macaw (among other sign-like petroglyphs)[1] on the walls above the pueblo ruins in Frijoles Canyon in Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico that came to mind when reading your explanation. The pueblo ruins themselves are immediately above an agriculturally developed riverbed floodplain with structures previously used for food storage.
It doesn't seem too far fetched to analogize a macaw above a pueblo in a canyon to, say, a flamingo on a neon sign (Circa 20th century)[2] above a bar along a highway, or an ad on a phone in 2025. Perhaps advertising is emergent (and, dare I say, with an element of pre-destination).
[1] https://www.nps.gov/places/petroglyphs-pueblo-loop-trail-sto...
[2] https://www.flickr.com/photos/25229906@N00/4056975591/
An emergent property of scaling civilization then, not just humanity specifically. It does make me wonder how alien advertising might differ.
Whoever said that lived with their parents and didn't pay rent
Maybe magnifying the puck could be a good use case for AR glasses
I know this might seem reductive but when you say "look where everyone is looking", the answer hasn't really changed since the 2010s — it's our phones.
(and to some extent, monitors if you account for the amount of time 9-5 people spend on their work laptops or screens. desktop is not dead but that's another matter)
The hot apps are for now, chatbots and vertical shortform platforms. We know advertisers get much better bang for their buck marketing where the influencers are.
Google is "dead" because search advertising is much worse at figuring you out and showing you stuff when you're not necessarily looking for it. But Google can easily advertise where the eyeballs are - your phones.
We must remember that enshittification is an ongoing process and Google has the power to reach billions of people, one shitty update at a time.
From their POV, it definitely feels like a miss that they don't own a successful and dedicated social media platform. Maybe they will make another foray into it.
Shortfirm video generated based upon ai search?
>Look where everyone is looking and you'll find your answer there. It may not be in the same form as Google adwords, but the game is the same. Leveraging attention.
The chill that ran down my spine when I realized that you and TFA think that the part people care about is Google as an ad platform, and not as a way to access websites.
Jesus fucking Christ, things are bleak.
Do you know how Google makes money?
I actually don't care. Most people don't. We care about the quality of service. Aside from Google employees and shareholders, I assume that most users would prefer a useful service that barely makes the company any money, versus a money-printer that's useless and a PITA to use.
So, The King is dead long live the King!
As someone who is completely disinterested in sports[1], I like this analogy.
-----------------------------
[1] Watching them, anyway. I like playing, but I get almost sleepy-coma-like boredom by watching it. Probably a personality deficiency, but meh.
Interesting way to put it!
I think the author intended the title to be,
"Google Ads is dead, Where do I promote my business now?"
When I hear "Google" I assume search, oof (sigh of relief).
They mention running ads on tiktok or instagram but no mention of youtube ads...
Also, In my own experience for my business ( also entertainment) I have found reddit ads to be useful.
So my next steps would be,
[Edit: Added Instagram Ads, from a different comment]I’d suggest that the title should be, “Competition for Google AdWords is so strong that unsophisticated advertisers can no longer get a good return. Where do I promote my business now?”
He had presumably used it for 10 years successfully. Surely he gained some expertise over that time period.
He probably just got a new competitor in the space. Easy to see good returns on online ad spend when all traffic just goes to you by default.
Ad noob here; how would you test this hypothesis?
Or returns gradually went down until it stopped working altogether.
Nobody goes there any more. It's too crowded.
-- Yogi Berra
I have a feeling that it is mostly unsophisticated advertisers bidding up the price of AdWords.
As someone who leads large parts of ad tech for TikTok and worked at Google for 10 years, it’s the K shaped economy that is pressing SMBs out. Pure and simple
Everyone can make up some complex theories but I see it in the numbers every day. Spend distribution is now k shaped and SMBs simply can’t compete at top end performance levels.
This seems one of the more important comments here - a K shaped economy (Rich get richer up the rising arm of the K and the rest of us are on the down arm) dominates everything (ie asset price inflation means if you had assets in 2020 you probably still do else good luck) and this just is one of many ways the playing field has tilted towards the richest.
And it is always a choice - we choose platforms and regulations and spending priorities. If “we” choose a different set of tech regulations the K shaped economy can be put back in its box.
For me the problem was most clearly outlined by Cory Doctorow “developers did not unionise or rebel in time because they thought of themselves as temporarily embarrassed entrepreneurs”.
Presumably with apologies to Steinbeck: “Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist.”
There is probably an element of truth in that however when I looked at the people who outbid me on keywords half were selling high value products where they had enough margin to make it viable. The other half seemed to be spaffing their money up the wall.
Can you share any numbers ie roughly how different the spend is? SMB spends $1k on ads but grandes spend $1M or something? Idk how it works.
SMBs broadly spend 200-400 dollars a month on ads and see marginal to negative returns against 10 million in spend for large clients. Even 1000-5000 see marginal returns at best unless the target small demo high return (local premium services). They lack the budgets for learning and optimization let alone optimal price per placement.
This combined with SMBs targeting everyday joes with increasing less demand availability for anything it leaves them crushed on both sides.
Wow so 10,000-100,000x spend difference. That is a wide K.
Do you think there’s any hope for SMB? Eg I’ve seen some companies tout AI advertising optimization for SMB but when I looked into one for investment the numbers weren’t very compelling.
What is the proportion of spend of SMBs vs large clients? Would you say that large clients are responsible for most of the advertising revenue? I always assumed that would be something like a 50/50 split, but these numbers made me question that assumption.
I have a colleague who runs growth for a big consumer company driving value through their apps. They spend over $100m/year on install ads.
And the fact they price smbs out should be unsurprising: they're better at making money from a user; users are worth more to them; so they pay more.
Wouldn't the K shape only affect targeting of affluent users that are desirable to luxury brands?
It affects everyone. It's always been the case, also in traditional advertising. As soon as a company gets rich it defaults to massive marketing (at a loss) to stay on top and drown the underdogs. That's why I think marketing spend should be capped by revenue by law. The current system stiffles competition
I lke it. It would be wonderful if the cap was gradually reduced to 0.
That would make it easy to implement: a simple payment receipt to a journalist who visited a "demo" would be enough to start fining them. Imagine the honesty of the press when it can't get bribed by the oligarchs anymore. Or imagine charities needing to court local producers instead of poison-cola for endorsements. It would be a different world!
Think through the net margins of the bottom of the K left to them. And then the spend against their own K economy on the business side.
Makes sense, thanks
Not all companies that have massive budgets only sell to affluent consumers. For example, walmart, amazon, most streaming services, coca-cola, pepsi, mcdonalds, etc.
it's not "competition"
it's bots creating too high noise-to-ratio for feedback loop
> Also, In my own experience for my business ( also entertainment) I have found reddit ads to be useful.
Reddit is very hit or miss depending on your target audience.
Depending on your Reddit target audience, a lot of people could have adblock installed. They might be loyal to communities that have approved vendor lists where everyone parrots the same vendor recommendations back and forth in every thread, so not being part of that game means you're left out. In some niches, the subreddit moderators have a financial relationship with vendors and they'll put their weight into swaying every conversation away from competitors.
For other niches, none of this applies and Reddit can be a good ad destination. It really depends
100%. My business is in the smart home space. I peruse various smart home subreddit communities, and they all have a few brands that are aggressively celebrated on Reddit. Market research, financial disclosures, and other public data largely indicates that these brands are not all that popular, especially in the biggest-spend markets.
We don’t find Reddit ads valuable.
Let's be honest, most "Reddit marketing" isn't about on-site ads, it's about posting UGC that promotes your product in some way.
I run a large marketing agency and Reddit is terrible for advertising across most verticals.
Thank you. This is a perfect example of clickbait. I trusted the HN crowd, clicked the link, and immediately realized the trap. I'm upset at how effective it is. And also commend the author for publishing an article specifically engineered to waste the viewers time.
In truth, I have never seen a company doing such an insane 180 against it's traditional suppliers as Google is doing against the websites populating its search pages which now Google milks as mere training data. Google Search is dead, from the perspective of the websites, and there is less and less incentive to spend effort and money to appear on the first pages.
Google better have a good strategy because this is bound to have 2nd order effects down the road, like, why would I pay money for advertising on a dead internet search engine? If AI is killing organic results, then AI better make money itself, because dead websites don't buy ads.
Based on personal experience, I would be wary on spending much on Reddit ads without carefully measuring the results. Some real world data:
https://successfulsoftware.net/2025/08/11/what-i-learned-spe...
It's been some years since I've had to put ads on the web, but I found Reddit ads insanely effective. Really, Google ads have been dead for a long time. I found them hardly effective at all since maybe 2011.
A surgeon in our family got basically all his (private) clients from Google. Spend was multiple k per month. If you consider that one surgery brings in 7k in revenue, then those numbers actually make sense. He's retired now but did this up to 2y ago.
This is a Kshaped example that’s solid. Some SMBs can afford per keyword large spend in focused high reward arenas. The rest can’t do anything.
> Really, Google ads have been dead for a long time.
For you perhaps. I work with a huge amount of businesses whose profits are still driven almost entirely by them, who have seen not even a blip and make money hand over fist.
I wish I knew the difference. I’ve ran or been close to tens of businesses over the last 20 years and we’ve always paid the Google tax, but I’m not sure it’s ever had a positive ROI.
I think he's aimed in the right direction with the observation about short videos.
I tried to load his website. It took a full minute to come up. Maybe that's the HN hug of death or something, but this is surely issue #1 to resolve.
Beyond that I would ask whether targeting the "young'uns" directly is the correct strategy. His business is party entertainment, kids' birthday parties could be the biggest slice of that, but the kid isn't the purchasing decisionmaker, and there are all these other opportunities (like corporate events) too.
And then I would consider whether paying for ads in shorts is the right or only way to approach the world of video. The thing about video is it's huge, lucrative, and eating up more of people's time every year. People are moving from the text Internet, to watching videos. I would think given the nature of the business this guy has raw footage which can be turned into entertaining videos, or can produce it pretty quickly. I'm increasingly surprised by how much some people can earn on Youtube, by creating videos that also function as marketing collateral for their business. He will ultimately need to geotarget to get customers, so yeah that's probably paid ads, but a good YouTube channel would build authority, making sales easier to close, and might also make him more money than you'd expect via ad revenue.
My entertainment website typically gets 10-100 visitors per day, yesterday it was more like 1000 per hour. The only reason it's still online is because of CloudFlare CDN!
My content is best live and in person but you are right, will be concentrating more on video content for yt and others going forward
It loaded in far less than a second for me, almost immediate.
Hmm, the URL appears to have changed since I commented. It was originally a .co.za. Now it's fast.
Perhaps there was a CDN issue (I am in a country that is definitely not material to his business)
I updated CloudFlare settings, yes. Seems to have worked?
Looks like it, site loads within 1 second now!
I forgot YouTube has ads, thanks.
I do occasionally post (free) on Reddit, it's not that big here though
By "here" I think you mean SA. Reddit is big in the U.S.
Reddits been building up its user base in India the past few years.[1]
I’m permabanned on Reddit so I only consume via the default not logged in feed and I run into some comments in what I assume is Hindi(might be marathi or one of the multiple other languages on the continent) or posts from subreddits explicitly about some aspect of india
[1] https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/inside-reddits...
How are permabanned? Can you just change the handle or create a new account?
I had a few alt accounts, they were all banned and I wasn’t able to make a new account with existing emails.
I assume, with no evidence, that they just used the same data tracking for ads, to enforce the ban. I think Meta turned on the real banning tech during a panic in Covid iirc
I noticed I was shadow banned on youtube (for comments). I have no idea what was the reason because I rarely comment and am very civil when I do. It doesn’t bother me much though, I was just curious how it happened.
I got a few strikes. They were in one of two main categories
1: my true beliefs 2: directly quoting the president
I laugh at any current supporters of this admin who complain about censorship while this is happening and we’re doing shit like having multiple media companies being sued by the king left and right.
Yes, I agree with you. It’s become quite ridiculous. I expect things will turn for the worse and comments would be used against people in various ways if it’s not already happening, eg. being scanned on social media upon entering the US. Dark times…
Could be using time links and/or commenting too much.
Their ban system is really hard to get around. They use a massive amount of different signals to try to detect anyone trying to get around a ban.
(Reddit has two forms of bans, shadowbans and permabans, both have essentially the same effect)
Occasionally post reddit content or occasionally post reddit ads?
content, in r/Durban - gets a few views
for personal, I'm on lemmy now
How are you finding lemmy community compared to reddit?
what community? There's almost nobody there! (it's nice)
How did you run campaigns on reddit? Reddit ads had the worst performance among all platforms I tried, literally zero conversion.
> When I hear "Google" I assume search, oof (sigh of relief).
If Google Ads is dead/dying the search is soon to follow...
Search died ages ago [1]. Ads dying is a direct consequence of that.
[1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/
> Search died ages ago
You might want to let Google know that, because the number of searches on Google appears to continue to be growing massively:
https://searchengineland.com/google-5-trillion-searches-per-...
Those numbers look like the exact opposite of dead or dying to me. As does Google's growing stock price over the same time period.
‘Numbers go up’ is the exact type of thinking that caused the death of search.
From a user perspective, google search results are awful and almost always a complete waste of time.
Again, this "death of search" I hear so much about, but doesn't exist in the numbers.
If search results are such a waste of time, why do people keep using Google? In ever-increasing numbers? What's the explanation there?
You get what you measure.
It does not follow that people making more searches means people are having more successful searches. If google found the exact thing you were looking for and put it top centre in the results, would the number of human searchers stay the same but the number of human searches drop?
Dead internet theory explains this perfectly well.
Google search results are a wasteland of ads and content farms, with vanishingly small value for humans
Again, then why are people using Google more than ever?
I don't really see how "dead internet theory" explains that. If it were as bad as you claim, surely usage would be plummeting? But it's just the opposite.
Are you sure it’s _people_ driving this increase?
Dead internet theory means real users are declining while bot users are skyrocketing.
For example google search is such a terrible experience these days that I’ll often ask an LLM instead.
That LLM may do multiple google and other searches on my behalf, combine, collate and present me with just the information I am looking for, bypassing the search experience entirely.
This is a fundamentally different use case from human traffic.
> Are you sure it’s _people_ driving this increase?
Most likely - yes. If Google has been dead for years people wouldn't pour hundreds of billions of dollars into ads there. The Search revenue keeps increasing, even since ChatGPT showed up. It might stagnate soon or even decrease a bit - but "death" ? The numbers don't back this up. One blog saying he stops paying for Google ads conflicts with the reality of around 200 billion yearly revenue from Search.
Exactly this. Businesses decide whether to pay for ads based on clickthru rates and conversions. Bots don't click through. They don't convert. If these rates fall, advertisers will pay proportionally less as their max bid, and Search ads revenue will fall substantially.
That hasn't happened. Google continues to grow with real users.
The design of Chrome is such that people use Google search instead of entering the tld.
The policy described in my link is literally about making each user search more to get the results they want in order to drive more ad revenue. That would create more searches and a less good user experience.
That is good evidence that Google is dying because it takes more than one search query to find what you want.
You should let Google know, given their business is really humming nowadays. Along with their stock price.
Google search died years ago already.
Gemini is the new search.
AI is not and cannot be search. Search is dead and has been for a few years now. Search has seemingly been subsumed into the LLM monster, considering how "fuzzy" queries have become (probably because they're not hitting the search algorithm without being massaged by "something else"). Significant portions of the web have been purged from Google's index, which means that neither Gemini nor Search can present those pages to users.
It's over. Sorry.
When people say "search is dead", I feel like you and I live on different planets.
If I have an idea of what I want, Google search works great. On the rare occasion I don't know the specific thing I'm looking for, Gemini points the way.
It had never ever been easier for me to find what I'm looking for on the internet, since 1993-1994.
I do wonder how much browser, location, and language plays into this.
I believed these sorts of statements a few years ago, but not anymore. Results were hit-and-miss enough to give the benefit-of-the-doubt. They're now so bad that I assume bad faith, either on the part of the speaker or Google.
Search -> click on website -> read website to find the information you wanted; is dead/dying.
I agree that paradigm is over and using Google search feels antiquated. It’s not a good outcome for website owners, but I want info retrieval.
But Gemini doesn't bring much visitors to your website. Also, optimizing for AI is even more "black magic" than normal SEO.
Instead sites adds Gemini integrations, which are targeted based on prompts. When you pay enough, Gemini recommends your shop and AI buys the stuff for the target audience.
Google considers the consumer's side, not just the publishers. Users often don't want to visit someone's website (and then dodge ads and cookie/newsletter/notification popups). If the query can be answered without veer visiting a website, so much the better.
Yep, I use it when I run out of free usage on ChatGPT or DeepSeek, or for simple queries, once ads show up I’ll block them or use something else
Hm good point but if one were to try to reach visibility via let's say contacting the creators themselves or making reddit showcases themselves?
I am not sure what might work better, sponsorships or Ads. Of course some are definitely icky sponsorships but if one were to align with small youtubers who develop their own things and you enjoy their content and there might be an overlap etc.
I personally have an ad blocker so I don't really know what might work for. I guess organic marketing? But how does one achieve it?
Any good books / ideas on more sustainable forms of marketing aside from paying the large corporations a sort of land tax basically?
for my life, I haven't found ads useful at all, so I block them
I see paid ads as a short-term goal; the business seems to be local, so people should find this when looking for this specific service in their city.
Google ads is dead precisely because their search product is dead.
Ever since Google bought double click, their ads business has been their search business. They are the same product.
> their search product is dead
Do we have any evidence search volume is down?
Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid Kagi user. But I'm sceptical anyone outside tech is using anything other than Google.
I watch people search for PlatformName Login every single day because they don't know how URLs work.
Google isn't search. It's a crutch for people with too much time and money.
p.s. not google labs, not tpu's, but specifically search.
> Google isn't search. It's a crutch for people with too much time and money
…wouldn’t this make it an advertiser’s dream?
Google search ain't dead at all: it became so good something silly like 99% of all the queries have to be answered by the Google AI before the very first "result". And for those who want more, there's the "continue this discussion with Gemini".
Now this may not be great for Google Ads (dunno about that) but Google search now works better than it ever did.
The AI summary is good enough often enough that it's tempting to rely on it. But, at least as of a week or two ago when I finally decided to block it, it still gets things badly wrong. (Sometimes seemingly inexplicably, but often because the results don't obviously contain an answer and yet the LLM is desperate to provide one.)
Try to double check the AI inline response. Got it wrong way too many times to trust it now.
Any suggestions for local business? Things that operate only within a specified area. Google worked well for those.
Without search ad revenue Google is dead.
Remember when people wrote things online because they had something useful to say and share and that was enough?
Now it’s slop factory of people having a writing quota to get enough ads because they don’t want to work. Particularly true for tech writers who praise things like leetcode then can’t get a real job.
Now it’s supercharged by ai and they’re upset how accessible their slop job is. I just find that funny I suppose.
Surprised to see this upvoted because the takeaway is completely incorrect, and based on the anecdotal evidence of one advertiser.
As someone who spends seven figures every month on Google ads, what’s much more likely to be happening here is that the individual advertiser is either getting outcompeted or they’re executing ads poorly.
Google ads revenue in the US continues to grow every quarter. And, since advertisers will generally invest in ads until the last dollar is break even, it’s likely that the total value advertisers unlock through Google ads is growing as well. Whether that’s true or not, the notion that value generated for advertisers is “dead” is absurd.
I just Googled "kids magic show in Durban" and his ad showed up in the top slot (sorry if this post has swamped your ad bill); and as a bonus, the Gemini AI blurb also touted him: "For kids' magic shows in Durban, look for local entertainers like Big Top Entertainment..."
Doesn't seem like the issue is he's being outbid by international conglomerates with million dollar budgets. Maybe the kids magic show market has cooled in South Africa? Or users have left Google? Curious what we are to conclude here.
Google ads are very time & location dependent, the fact that it's showing to you might be a bad sign since you are most likely not close to Durban and this seems like an ad you only want to run locally.
Yes our ads were geo-fenced when I had them on. We have always had a good web presence, I think the conclusion is that nobody looks for services on Google, and our reliance on it above other channels is now no longer viable
Everybody looks on Google for services; or ChatGPT googles/bings it for them. Still the same.
We had a 10x jump just last month for my own company.
For bigger company I consult with we had stable revenue last 2 years even though search traffic declined by 50%, our Google ads still perform the same. In general buying intent still seem to come through Google, only 10% via GPT.
It will become more and more, but a full drop in 3 months means something else is wrong.
If I google for kids show in Durban, even if not from Durban, I want to see Durban related results.
There is no ad - that's organic. Money ran out day before yesterday
Your experience is 100% compatible with the linked article: the seven-figure spender is presumably running a much higher margin business and can scale narrowly profitable ads much more effectively. The natural equilibrium for a perfect ad market is for the ad spend to be exactly equal to increase in revenue: a perfectly efficient market with no profit for the advertiser. Google (and Meta et al) are so good that for many SMBs they are completely cornered at the zero-point: spend as much as you can just to stay in the same place financially.
> The natural equilibrium for a perfect ad market is for the ad spend to be exactly equal to increase in revenue
Not quite, the equilibrium is when marginal ad spend results in no change to profit. The ad spend at equilibrium should result in increased profit compared to no ad spend.
[dead]
I run a small software business and I know various other people who run small software businesses. We are all pretty much agreed that that Google Ads have been less and less profitable, year or year. Most of us have now given up on PPC ads.
And equally I know many people running non software businesses whose experience is the complete opposite of yours and Google ads has and continues to drive the majority of their revenue.
I expected them to start seeing a hit or significant decline by now, and even told them as such but in what I honestly find surprising, it’s not come to pass.
Agree, ran a business for years and I’ve seen the slow but steady decline of Google ads.
Ultimately I relied more on returning customer and mouth to mouth recommendations, kept lowering the Google ads budget.
I've run Google PPC on-and-off for 20+ years. It's definitely way harder to make money with them now, and the complexity is now through the roof, which makes it way harder for a novice to optimize their campaign. I steer small businesses away because it's too easy to screw up and lose your shirt on PPC without professional help.
As a small software business, do you have other approaches to ads?
I spend a small amount on Adwords and that is pretty much it. I gave up on Bing PPC. Facebook Ads aren't suitable for my market. Linked Ads ar too expensive. I tried Reddit Ads, but that was a disaster. See also:
https://successfulsoftware.net/2025/12/22/is-the-golden-age-...
What about sites like bitsdujour? I get an email with deals from them every so often (that I subscribe to) and have spent money on licenses after finding software that I liked.
I did bitsdujour a number of times. Each time I got less sales than the previous time, until it wasn't worth bothering. I'm still doing:
https://www.artisanalsoftwarefestival.com/
(25% off now!)
He's been using AdWords for 10 years, so I wouldn't assume incompetence there.
It's just as likely that people are simply spending less on entertainment due to high cost of living.
> and based on the anecdotal evidence of one advertiser
The author admits as much.
The question is, why has this post been massively upvoted?
It contains zero useful information. Just somebody struggling with AdWords and they don't know why. Not helpful.
I have to assume the vast majority of upvotes are based on the title alone, assuming it's about Search? A large proportion of top level comments are about Search too. Depressing.
Things are upvoted because people feel like discussing the subject. The actual article is usually just a conversation starter, if it's read at all.
Posting "Google is bad" will pretty much always get you to the top 5 spots on this site.
Massively? I can't know. I read the article and upvoted 1) because it suggests a rocky road ahead for Google and 2) because, as you may have guessed, I dislike ads, dislike Google's complicity in ads, and so am happy to discuss.
I happen to in fact think we have reached an inflection point. Whether "Google is dead" depends probably a good deal on where they go now.
Because if you go to /r/ppc or /r/googleads, you will see that the experience of the majority is exactly the same.
The "Google is dead" title in the AI age, probably.
I am fairly confident that the answer is that most people vote based on the title/headline without ever clicking through. I am likely guilty of this as well sometimes. It takes discipline to avoid this behaviour.
> We find that most users do not read the article that they vote on, and that, in total, 73% of posts were rated (i.e., upvoted or downvoted) without first viewing the content. [0]
In this case, my guess is that people are noticing less and less utility from Google search, and that was why they voted like they did.
This same phenomenon is what gives newspaper editors far more power than the journalists, as it is the editors who not only decide the stories to be covered, but even more importantly, they decide the headline. Most people just scan the headlines while subconsciously looking for confirmation of their own biases.
[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05267
meta comment separated for its own discussion
I tried to find that paper via google search first, and I failed after 3 different searches. I then opened my not-important-stuff LLM, chatgpt.com, and found it in 3 interactions, where in the 3rd I made it use search. Chatbots with search are just so good at "on the tip of my tongue" type things.
Google is in such a weird position because of their bread and butter legacy UX * scale. This has to be the biggest case of innovators dilemma of all time?
then you have people complaining that search is no longer a keyword match when people claim to know exactly what they want...
Totally! Hence the dilemma.
Google.com has "AI mode," and it tries to intelligently decide when to suggest that based on a search query. I could have likely clicke AI Mode on google.com once it gave me a crap SERP response, and used that to find the same thing. But, I instinctively just went to chatgpt.com instead. I am not a total moron, I use gemini, claude, and gpt APIs in the 2 LLM enabled products that I am working on...
However, just last week I noticed that the AI mode default reply for some queries was giving me just horrible AI mode replies. Like gpt-3.5 quality wrong assumptions. For the first time I saw google.com as the worst option. I cannot be the only one.
I think that I might understand the problem. Google has the tech, but as a public company they cannot start to lose money on every search query, right? The quarterly would look bad, bonuses would go down. Same reason ULA can't build Starship, even if they could and wanted to. However, OpenAI can lose money on every query. SOTA inference is not cheap.
> seven figures every month on Google ads
What are you advertising?
Basically any online shop with decent volume / revenue is going to be spending 100s of thousands if not millions of dollars a month on Google ads. (Not just Google Ads, also Facebook ads etc.)
It used to be possible to get by with "organic" search traffic and some SEO... but google search looked completely different back then. Now when you look for something it's an AI box, products (google merchant) ad box, ad (promoted results) box, ... then there's a couple of (like two) results that are "organic" (whatever that means these days) and that's it. And we all know that when you want to hide something, you put it on the second page of google search results. So the space for doing online business "ad free" has been squeezed out over time.
And the K shaped economy is totally true in this ecomm space. These days say 15% of your revenue gets eaten by ads, but you also have say 50% higher revenue overall. At some point it becomes a margin game and the bigger players will start squeezing out the smaller ones because the biggers ones can operate on tighter margins (making up the difference with volume) which the smaller ones simply can't afford. The difference in operating costs of an eshop that sells 10000 items a month is not that different than that of an eshop selling 100000 items a month (i.e. not 10x, more like 2-3x). But selling 10x items gives you the volume you need to be able to lower your margins and put the difference into ads.
BTW all of this is handled by professional online marketing people with increasingly widespread use of AI so there's no room for the small players to make it big while not being optimized to the gills. This is why most small advertisers are seeing small or negative returns while Google and Meta are making tens if not hundreds of billions in ad revenue... The ads work, but the amounts you need to spend and the optimization level you need to have is in a completely different galaxy than it was 10 years ago.
Either Claude or OpenAI, going by all the ads I see.
> As someone who spends seven figures every month on Google ads, what’s much more likely to be happening here is that the individual advertiser is either getting outcompeted or they’re executing ads poorly.
Outcompeted by who??? He's a performer offering local entertainment. I highly doubt that people searching for "entertainer in durban" are getting ads for Cirque du Soleile.
His ad is probably on the first page for that search term; the problem is more likely that no one is looking at that first page anymore.
> Surprised to see this upvoted because the takeaway is completely incorrect
It's the standard actually. Hot takes get more votes and hot takes are usually wrong. Experts have non-controversial opinions, which are boring (so no impulse to upvote), and there are 1000x more non-experts with blogs. Add to that HN culture which values contrarian-ness. So HN front page blog posts are almost entirely incorrect, but spicy
I love knocking on Google, and have been doing so for longer than it was cool, but this sounds more like the business is no longer attractive than Google having become suddenly wildly ineffective.
My anecdotal evidence is the smarter normies are increasingly allergic to screens. They only use them to watch stuff they hear about by some other means, but parents, for example, look for any excuse to keep their kids off the Internet, and largely they're better for it.
It’s googles fault no one wants my product! It certainly can’t be the basics of demand!
- most SMBs I ever work with.
> the basics of demand
If you've been around longer than internet advertising you realize the basics of demand have changed pretty considerably.
Let's go back to 1980 and say that you have widget X that person A would absolutely buy if they saw/heard it advertised. They live in Podunk Minnesota that had coverage by 3 radio stations, 3 TV stations, and 2 newspapers. But you have no idea what media they actually consumed to target the right one.
Right now you're at the point you would have to contact at least 8 different media companies for ad spend if you wanted coverage. Most likely you'd cut it down to one of each, and maybe a billboard. This said, the cost for just this little area is going to be wildly expensive! Ads were huge money, and this is just for one little town.
These costs were slightly lower for large corporate buyers, but not that much because as you go back farther and farther you were typically dealing with more companies before consolidation. Being an SMB was great in this market in a local area because you weren't competing with the world.
Fast forward to now and you compete with the entire world at any given moment. In the West we've forgotten about competition and allowed a huge portion of our economic product to consolidate to a small number of companies. This is very apparent in advertising as the old media entities are dead or far more expensive than you'll ever recoup with the competition out there. Instead you're looking at Google/Reddit/Facebook style ads, but with that kind of ad you again, complete with the entire world. If your ad actually does good and drive business, then Google metrics will feedback to players watching the market and they will advertise products in the same space driving up competition and the base costs for ads. The supply from your competitors is practically unlimited which will drive your profits to almost zero unless you happen to have something very special.
Welcome to the K shaped economy, where the big get bigger and the small die.
The web is dead, we replaced with portable cable TV where you scroll up to change channel.
Glad to see I'm not the one that sees the similarity in "zapping" or channel surfing to what people do nowadays with those shorts...
I remember my brother loving to do channel surfing in the 80s when we were young. I've always hated it! maybe that's why I cannot stand the current Tiktok media format (so sad that Youtube is pushing more and more the same format).
Also, remember when telephones started and people who took vertical video where seen as sinners? How times change!
I still consider them as inconsiderate. You can watch a horizontal video on every screen with more, or equal detail. That's not true for vertical videos.
But at least, we could experience first hand that laziness beats thoughtfulness, when people are allowed to.
a cable TV where anybody can poison your brain with whatever benefit them
Any state sponsored actor can pay to play.
I'd be curious to know how much cable tv content was direct propaganda or hype
on youtube most of what i see is hyped hyperbolic content, polarized podcasts, shorts.. the way and reason why "content" is produced has changed
Direct propaganda? Not too much. However, the amount of content in the 1980s and 1990s that was in some way funded by the DOD was a bit crazy. Likewise, stuff like NED funded content. If one considers corporations part of the state, then the percentage of content that was propaganda would likely be more than 40%.
Today, this would be harder to figure. Because anyone can use a VPN and pose as a person in any country, any country’s intelligence people could be carrying out misinformation/disinformation campaigns at any time. How much of the left or right content on FB that mom is reading is from genuine actors vs intelligence actors? How many calls for violent action on the left and right are just FBI entrapment or Russian attempts to destabilize the USA?
When all of this was being built, this angle never occurred to me. It should have, but it didn’t. I naively thought, as so many did, that the ability of people to connect across national boundaries, across racial and gender lines, and across socio-economic divides would lead to a better, safer, and happier world. Sadly, I was completely mistaken. The internet became worse than life AFK on those fronts, people joined echo chambers, and radicalism increased.
whats a cable tv?
It's how we got our internet before the internet.
It's like TikTok but you hit buttons instead of swiping.
that sounds like a lot of work
The trick is you hold the controller in your limp hands, with your fingertip resting on one of the channel buttons. Usually the plus. So when you want to swipe you just extend your index finger just a fraction of an inch. And the screen changes. They dialed in the interface over years, and have gotten it to a process with almost no work involved.
Nearly same thing but instead of smacking the screen you'd actually press the physical button on remote control and run in circles with channel's list to find anything remotely interesting.
It's what Americans call non free to air television. You're probably being downvoted because it's intrensic there and they assume you must know about it.
It is indeed intrinsic here in America. Pretty much all houses that have been occupied in the last 50 years have at least one coax cable coming out of a wall jack or a corner of the floor. MoCA adapters allow for a nice home networking backbone in a house like that.
[flagged]
The way people get information online is changing rapidly.
I run a local makerspace. It is not quite the same thing as a local entertainment business, but there are certainly some similarities. We are local, and we are very event-based.
For the last 10 years, the way we would get new members was to host Meetups. Meetups are slowly bringing in fewer members. When I ask tour guests how they found out about us, they recently started saying that they found us on ChatGPT. They did not know what a makerspace was but they explained their problem and ChatGPT presented our space as a local solution. This has been good for us because we offer something useful to the community but struggle to explain it. In the old days of search, this was a problem because many people were not using the correct phrase to describe what we are. That doesn’t matter anymore.
How does a local business optimize for this though? I am not sure.
The question is how LLMs will get that kind of information in the future, if not from the web. By scraping TikTok and Discords?
>By scraping TikTok and Discords?
One of two ways. Yes, by scraping, even it it requires users to 'sell' their own browsing data to the AI companies because places like Discord lock them out.
Or, the other way is for particular event organizers to pay directly for their services to be advertised/incorporated into the LLM itself. Those that don't pay get more and more of their data erased from the LLM maybe?
Oof, that second one is ugly. Like Yelp style.
I anticipate a cottage industry of “AI optimization” types similar to the current SEO crowd. I have not seen too much of it yet, though.
Business directory for most of the telephone era was simply known as "the yellow pages". About once a quarter we get a color mailer with all the local plumbers, fencing companies, electricians etc. for homeowners who want a company that is actually licensed and insured.
instead of hosting a website you host... SERVICE.md, BUSINESS.md, .... or maybe a MCP server describing what you provide /s
Are you using "Meetups" to mean Meetup.com or just events in general? Meetup.com has completely gone to shit. Trying to find an event is super frustrating. They show the same events over and over. They don't enforce categorization. People mark online only events as in person and the platform doesn't care. They also started trying to charge users (people looking to attend events) instead of only planners (people hosting events) so it drives people away.
Sadly I don't know any better platform but it seems ripe for a new entry.
There is a meetup-like platform called Spontacts here in Germany. I suspect that for the moment it is only available for meetups in Germany, but who knows, maybe it'll expand internationally if it's successful.
What’s super depressing about Meetup.com are those Modal popups that want you to sign up for Pro. You can’t dismiss them. It’s like they’re intentionally destroying their product to squeeze the last remaining dollars from their users, which I assume are becoming fewer and fewer.
I meant both, and you are correct 100% that meet up has entirely gone to shit.
Yeah that is my experience entirely with meetup these days
Have a look at llms.txt
Push advertising sucks, but we can make pull much better by giving the user more control.
Imagine a protocol to publish commercial offers for any given fragment of content addressable by URI. It would describe the details of some product or service and a set of proposed terms. We could surf the web looking for relevant content and publishing related offers. Various repositories would subscribe or not.
A browser (extension or native) would optionally pull offers from selected repositories and have UI for the user to solicit/pull offers for any given piece of content styled to signal their existence, and to filter and sort them. To make it sustainable there needs to be revenue sharing with the content source(s).
Are there existing projects like this?
The same protocol could be used for independent commentary and other annotation.
The Brave/BAT experiment was similar to what you're describing. I think it failed to live up to its dreams of revolutionizing advertising because for the most part there are two kinds of people.
- I try not to think about ads
- I think about ads because I aggressively block them
I'm sure somebody out there represents a middle ground, but I think it's a pretty small demographic.
Why would I, as a user, ever opt in to this instead of just using adblock and never seeing adverts at all.
>user more control
As others said, most users don't care or don't want to see them.
This leaves the people that care being the ones who are providing the ads, and they will game the system with bots and other methods of bad acting that will make the system useless.
The problem is curation. People will mis-categorize in every way possible just to try to get eyeballs. I see this all over the web.
I hate ads until I need them, then I complain that the algorithms still suck. My wife recently reminded me I have to give Shopee time to surface good options when I don't have the exact words. I expect this to improve as their models improve.
I'm glad as hell not to run a business and never plan to, but it's interesting to think as a consumer where I would try to get information like this. Guy's running a service that provides in-person entertainment for events and parties, seemingly things like clowns and magicians, maybe small-time bands or what-not.
Seemingly you don't want to target children directly. If they ask their parents for specific entertainment at a party, they're going to ask for entertainers they know, not companies acting as brokers and middlemen. They might want a particular clown (but probably not) but will never want a particular local vendor of clowns. You need to target the parents for that. If it were me doing the buying, I'd probably prioritize word of mouth recommendations if anyone had such, and otherwise for a large enough event like a wedding or graduation party, I'd look to professional planners. Assuming that's any kind of widespread pattern, you'd want to target strong relationships with planners rather than trying to advertise directly to consumers.
Did people really ever search Google to find party entertainment, and then ignore the search results and use the ads instead? Let alone Tik Tok videos? I guess I'm out of touch enough that the answer can be yes and I'm just that clueless about how small businesses work, but all the comments talking about LLM chatbot services are tripping me out. Y'all would ask ChatGPT who to hire for your kid's party?
Google Adwords just shows your ad at the top of search results. Someone searches for a clown and I'm on top - worth paying for! (when it worked)
I think Google’s search and ad business are at risk. Search has become such a mess that it’s become harder and harder to use to find quality results. It reminds me of Yahoo before Google in a way.
I’m using ChatCPT or equivalent for 60% of my searches. The remaining 40% is just muscle memory. Of that 40% about half the time I regret using Google search due to the difficulty of finding the relevant result.
I can see search users moving to ChatGPT or such and Googles Ad business suffering as a result and a general downward spiral of Google search.
You don't think putting ads in Gemini output has crossed Google's mind?
I've never understood the "AI is eating search! Google is dead!" theory. The specific mechanism (whether that be keyword search, LLM conversation or something else) by which users describe their needs to a company doesn't matter, all that matters is that (a) the company makes that mechanism available for free, (b) it does a good job of satisfying the user's need and (c) ads can be smuggled into it.
Why do you assume I don’t think that? Of course it will happen at some stage. But my comment wasn’t addressing the future, but now. Effectively ChatGPT is buying market share by not having ads; that’s clear. What’s not clear is whether there’s a more innovative model than inserting low-quality, mostly irrelevant ads into the body of the chat they way Google and YouTube do it today. In a Chat agent, advertising also will be an issue for credibility of results. So I think the ad model as we know it will need to change.
> You don't think putting ads in Gemini output has crossed Google's mind?
What do you think the mandatory youtube link in every conversation is, if not a link to an ad?
They have successfully monetised chatbot AI, while no one else has.
This is a temporary situation. Think of it like how Napster let you download any song for free for a few years. For a while, all you heard was how the Internet was going to put all musicians out of business. Obviously that didn't happen.
The same will happen here. It's not like OpenAI has built a search engine; every time they need a live search they hit Bing (please correct me if I'm wrong) and get the results from there. No matter how you slice it, search companies who actually supply the data are going to get reimbursed, and since most users don't pay $20 / month, that likely means ads everywhere.
Also, Google's AI overviews are getting very good. Initially it was pretty inaccurate, but now it's basically 95% as good as ChatGPT, and faster. Most normies I talk to think it's good enough.
> I am AI assisted, very fast!
I sometimes think people really don't understand the value-add of AI (and I say this as someone on the less hyperbolic end of the "AI-hype" spectrum). If your service to me can be accomplished by AI "very fast"... I don't need you anymore. AI provides a generic problem solving interface where non-experts can leverage the power of the AI to solve a task they previously couldn't have so long as they can describe it well.
I've had multiple cases at work or other places where I've been presented with something as the stakeholder and been told "I used AI to make this!" Great! Next time I'll use AI to make it and save myself the overhead/cost of having work with someone else. I don't see a lot of value in explaining a problem to you so that you can then re-explain it to an LLM.
When people show me they've used AI to complete a task I used to have to do I'm delighted, and, more often then not, proven my value when they come back weeks later asking for help untangling the mess they've made. But, I'm equally delighted in the cases where they are successful using AI to replace things I used to be tasked with. Despite the AI hype, I find myself busier than ever.
Is this being on top of HN part of the writer's new non-google marketing strategy?
Please not that again, my server was down for 2 days last time! (I did join CloudFlare CDN after that)
Cloudflare seems to be sorting it out (mostly).
CF is exposes my own hypocrisy more than any other company. I am always the first person to say that humans shouldn’t be centralizing so much into so few hands, but then… I use CloudFlare, I recommend it to others, and the company has a fairly decent track record.
> CloudFlare CDN
lol
Not sure how much HN is read in SA though. Could even be a small GEO/SEO bonus if search engines/LLMs pick up the thread + his webpage.
Thankfully there are a bunch of comments here summarising the post.
A blog post lamenting the demise of Google Adwords.
AI is built with content from the open web, but it has also killed the open web. The death of Adwords is only one symptom of that.
I don't know what comes next, I just know it will be worse.
It wasn't really AI. Fundamentally, building a website the "traditional" way (hosting agreement, apache install, your favorite way to convert data formats that don't hate you into HTML, CSS, and JavaScript) was always a learned and quite technical skill; most people weren't doing it for fun, they were doing it because it was the only way to be on the web.
What killed the open web was Facebook, Twitter, and their ilk replacing that whole mess with social media profiles, networking connections, and templated, pre-fabricated organization home pages. When social networks became dominant enough that businesses could use it to get their info out there without having to author a webpage, the balance tipped (at least for business-motivated web content).
No, google search has stopped being useful years before "AI".
Is that why it kept it's market share and usage numbers?
They're paying right and left to be the default search option, aren't they?
Plus to be honest alternatives aren't much better. I use duckduckgo but the results are still a deluge of spam (content mills).
Business momentum goes a long way, especially with Google being near monopoly status in their advertising. If you're flying at 50,000 feet and the engines fall off the plane it may be a long time before you the customer feel the impact. We can only guess Google is in a panic trying to figure out how they'll make their numbers next quarter and looking for something else to enshittify to increase profits in the meantime.
It was still useful to advertisers and publishers.
- Build FAQ section (LLM can help write a lot of it, if you let it load the content of your site) - Write news on your site (LLM can help you to find ideas what to write about)
There are other networks as well: X, Meta, YouTube, LinkedIn, Amazon ads. It depends what’s your target group. But all networks have targeting tools so you can test them with minimum budget just to see what works and what doesn’t.
For sure, you have some personalized landing pages with CTA (Posthog script included so you can see what works).
good riddance seriously i used to pay like $1~2 a click back in 2010s and remember feeling like a total scam. no way of knowing if those clicks were bots and any campaigns would always have inflation somehow even long tail words that shouldn't.
AI should equal the playing field and promote businesses based on merit and capacity not how much they can spend.
I will say I have no experience in the ad space, but surely the SEO/ad companies will figure out how to game LLMs to make their sites more likely to be picked up by it, no? Or OpenAI would just directly sell ads themselves.
Yes - we're in what I like to call the Socialist Phase of AI (user acquisition). We were once in this phase with Google. Eventually we'll move into the as-yet-unnamed-by-me phase that Google (and search in General, also the internet) have been in for quite some time, where they try and squeeze out all the money that they put in during the Socialist Phase.
The classic pairing is explore/exploit - where you allocate resources towards serendipity in the former, and lock down into only doing the profitable thing in the second.
I like to call this the candyvan phase.
Value creation phase vs extraction phase.
Capitalist?
I prefer not, because technically this socialist phase is part of capitalism currently.
For now.
I give it maybe 12-18 months before AI results are polluted by advertising.
I don't even think this golden age actually exists today. Aask Google AI mode for the best product in some category - say, the best kitchen range - and it cites... a bunch of spammy "review" websites and a YouTube video.
If you're shopping around, an LLM you control can work for stuff like summarizing customer reviews or compiling a list of products with specific features (if you don't mind them being randomly wrong). But for general shopping advice / "plan my vacation" kind of queries, it's already firmly in the land of SEO-garbage-in-SEO-garbage-out.
> I give it maybe 12-18 months before AI results are polluted by advertising.
Have you been on amazon lately? We're already there. :-/
they won't be in a separate panel you can ignore, either
the product promotion text will be integrated into the responses
'your prompt is insightful and refreshing. reminds me of the refreshing taste of organic coconut-cinnamon water. here's a QR code coupon for $1 off a 48-ct pack you can use at your local HoleFoods.'
More like
"Fantastic! It's great that you care about what you should feed your children. A bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch is a great way to start your kids' day with the energy they need, and it's something they're sure to love! It's also fortified with vitamins to give them the nutrition they need! If you don't have any, I can start a DoorDash order right now."
Or "It's great that you want to find a way to earn some extra money for holiday presents for your family when you don't have anything left over after paying your bills. You're so thoughtful. You're an avid sports fan, so you've got the knowledge to have an edge in sports betting. DraftKings has a $10 credit when you bet your first $15 on tomorrow's game. You're automatically a winner!"
One mustn't forget that propagandists are frequently just straight malicious.
They want to get there (embedded ads that look like content), but right now it's not so easy - how can they confirm to the advertiser that the ad was seen? What are they gonna do? Put in a 700-character long link in the conversation?
I'm pretty certain that the ChatAI providers want to show ads, but until they can bill for it, they aren't going to.
At some point the billing will work, and then they will.
My point is more that thinking advertisement is simply "here's a coupon buy this thing" is naive. The more pernicious flavor is "this thing that everyone knows hurts you (but makes us money) isn't that bad. In fact it's good! You should do it!" That flavor is pervasive to such a degree that people don't even register it.
The AI people call this "alignment" or "safety".
exactly, enjoy the Golden age people, like the Internet had once...
I would be that Openai and Google will find a way to boost the embedded ad in the llm result to you based on an auction on how valuable you and your query are
> AI should equal the playing field and promote businesses based on merit and capacity not how much they can spend.
Wasn't that pretty much also the promise of Google as a search engine originally? For the longest time Google actively fought SEO, while running a minimal set of ads, then they bought DoubleClick and everything went to to shit.
AI should equal the playing field, but it won't. The current generation have our bias built in and it's not in a good place financially. It's only a matter of time because it becomes infested with ads. You think OpenAI aren't going to promote shitty products or companies, because the algorithm says they shouldn't? No, they might charge that customer more, but they aren't saying no.
This is a multi facet problem. There's a generation of advertisers who believe that advertising is clicking around in the AdWords interface, maybe sprinkle in a little ad spend on Meta and boom, you're done. The reality is that they can't advertising anything, they don't have the skills required to sell a product.
If they can't rely on Google, where can they go? Social media, AI? Nope, because many of us have been burnt by the major online platforms and won't trust any of them. I'm never signing up for another social media platform, hell, I'm reluctant to sign up for ANYTHING. The current generation of marketing has sacrificed the future for a quick profit now. Many aren't on social media, we use adblockers, we pay for services to ensure no ads, we don't watch TV, newspapers are dead, we don't go out much, so where are you going to advertise exactly? Even if you find a venue, many see so few ads that your attempt at marketing is going to feel like an assault, because you're so desperate that you don't dare tone it down enough.
Advertisement needs to reinvent itself, and it needs to stop funding the entire online services industry, because it can't, not without cannibalizing its own future.
[dead]
Most people now conduct searches through AI chat. We never trusted Google with our search terms, IP address linked to WiFi and cell towers surveys with Google trucks for cross referencing on Google map, browser fingerprinting, time of day pattern detection, mouse reaction time measurement for age estimation, cross referencing with economic profiling of neighbourhoods, income bracket estimation algorithms, interest profiling based on search terms, browsing breadcrumbs, social network tracking, etc. Now imagine the new powers of AI chat adding reasoning patterns, deep thinking and complete trust to the equation. Let us organise a disconnect day where you turn off your phone and Internet router and ISP box just to confuse the algorithms! Where do we go from here? We stay home and invite disconnected friends for a rare moment of statistically insignificant privacy.
Might this not also be the fact that given the cost of living the world over, being able to afford a fancy party with entertainment like the poster provides is a luxury few can afford now? We used to eat out a lot more (Saturday lunch at a cafe I mean) and also used to get HelloFresh and other such services, but as the cost of them has gone up way faster than our salaries, we've had to reign them all back. I agree with the "Google is dying" sentiment for sure, but I also wonder how much is just being unable to afford nice things anymore.
Googles ad business is riddled with fraud in all levels.
Google profits directly from the fraud. It has no incentive to reduce it and is embarrassed by its extent.
Google is essentially overseeing a huge criminal enterprise which funds its other activities. It’s been well documented for over a decade and no one seems to care.
The traffic is faked, the publishers are faked, the clicks are faked and the ad rates are manipulated.
It’s an incredibly lucrative way to steal money with extremely low risk and trivial penalties. The victims are the advertisers. Google has no interest in rocking the boat while they get paid.
The effective ads via Google platforms are like the percentage of real drugs in what’s bought off the street. Coincidental and ever being shaved.
Can confirm this with YouTube advertising. When enabled for growth, it's nothing but bot farms. When I reached out to Google about it, they acknowledged the unusual traffic but did nothing about it. They are running a huge fraudulent business.
It’ not Google that’s dead. It’s the economy in North American markets. I am finding conversion way down, clicks and impressions I’m still getting. People are just being way more fussy before handing over cash.
Everyone i talk to is quoting the same time line, this started in September and it hasn’t returned to normal.
Winter is coming.
The blog in question is in South Africa.
Everyone I talk to says the opposite.
Spring has sprung.
Please go anywhere but the platforms I use. Go fill Tiktok up with ads. Any of the "mainstream" platforms inbuilt ad posts are a good bet. Or a marketing agency that will disguse it as organic content.
Lol wish I could afford to "fill up Tiktok with ads"! Seriously though, I always felt like Google AdWords (we only used the search network) are the most honest way. Someone searches for what you offer and they see your ad. With these other platforms it's more about relying on the algorithm.
Google ads are the cheapest yes, but depending on your audience they may not be looking on Google now.
For ChatGPT (and similar) you need to have a strong FAQ page and lots of content marketing to increase the likelihood of being the suggested answer when a user asks ChatGPT a relevant question (it's a highly probabilistic system, look up AEO/GEO).
CloudFlare for example offers an option to block AI scraping bots by default. If you are in the services business, this is the opposite of what you want because having AI crawlers scrape your site would drive traffic down the road when users ask a related question.
I would also suggest having accounts with major chatbot companies and enabling the "allow training on my conversations" option and then talk to it about your services. Ultimately you just want to get your brand into the training data corpus, and the rest is just basic machine learning statistics.
Facebook ads were the cheapest for me ten years ago.
We were marketing a product that many people were happy to know existed. The dashboard gave us tools to really delve into demographics. Of all the ridiculous personal data Facebook collected, the best demographic filter was allowing me to narrow in on pages someone liked or interacted with. We were selling things related to cruising sailboats, and we could target an audience within 30 miles of Fort Lauderdale who also liked Sailing Magazine. Moreover, we could use a pixel so that only people who had also visited our website saw the ads.
Facebook had a policy of rewarding high-quality ad content. If people clicked the ad, or better yet left positive comments and discussion or shared, the price drastically decreased to fractions of a cent per impression and click-through. We were able to get ads shared a lot with people tagging other people about the product suggesting they might be interested in it. That was the holy grail for copy that we always strived for.
Of course, they got rid of all that. But at the time, it was a great way to target an audience based on third-party pages they liked, giving them ad content about products they were generally interested in—and products they were happy to know they could purchase because they had value.
Ads configuration is like gambling in Las Vegas, in that the easier the game, the worse the odds—like slot machines—and the more the player has to interact, like Blackjack, the better the payout. When done well with good configuration, we were getting 1000s of click-throughs for dollars. It was amazing.
The point is that Facebook rewarded ads that people positively interacted with, as it meant the quality of the news feed wasn't hurt by the ad.
There was a time when ads benefitted everyone, the buyer, the seller, and Facebook.
>when ads benefitted everyone, the buyer, the seller, and Facebook
As others have stated in this thread, it's called the acquisition phase. Get people hooked, build the network, make it be the place that people have to be at.
After that comes the exploit phase where said network effects make it hard to leave. You can rake in billions (trillion?) of dollars this way. Who cares if it eventually kills the company, you've made more money than god at this point.
Google Search Ads are usually the most expensive on a CPC basis out of the big platforms, but usually the CPA is much lower (even though Bing Ads can often be better value). This is usually because of 2 reasons:
1. You can target a specific part of the funnel (informational -> purchase intent) in search ads. Targeting on social networks is more about overall user profiles rather than their immediate state of mind.
2. People going to a search engine expect to leave that search engine to go to another website. Whereas people on a social network expect to stay in that portal. So clicking on an ad then doing something after is a more natural flow (and better value for advertisers).
Your product are programmable LED pois?
That does seem like a very good fit for a good video that can spread on TikTok etc on its own if some performers upload videos.
NO that's a side project - my product is my juggling/magic shows here in Durban (also good for video though). I made the poi for myself and open sourced it, now people are selling them in Brazil, and Australia. Sometimes I get a bit of cash from it but not a lot.
I see. Not sure if TikTok is the best plattform then as you want a very local audience (but I never used TikTok, just watched family members do).
I rather would try to get an entry on google maps. Meaning when people browse the area, they see your thing. I certainly like to discover new stuff like this in new areas and some things I find are clearly there because of ads, but other got there by other ways. Making a entry by hand, publishing a picture there with further info ..
We are on Google Maps. Many 5* ratings (apart from that one psycho neighbour who objected to me asking him to turn his base down - they left one night without paying their rent and a week later my business has 1* review. urrgh 10 years and I'm still annoyed)
Instagram has apparently got hyper specific location targeting, so we are doing an ad on there now.
Maybe you just need to update your act. Eat some tide pods or something.
I think the Magician equivalent is David Blaine, making people pass out from shock because you smuggled a fake spider into their ear or something.
Mostly we do kids entertainment though, so that's not really going to convice moms to hire my magic show for Bobby's birthday
Ok here's an idea, you find leads of houses in your area with a kid whose birthday is coming up and send them flyers. You're a dev guy this should be up your alley. $1 each with Postgrid API or do it yourself and it's the cost of your time + stamps + papercuts. Where do you get those leads do you ask? That's actually a good question and I'll need to get back to you on that. Make sure to put a QR code on the flyers.
Why hate on the guy with the kids’ entertainment business for placing ads? I don’t get it.
I think they’re really hating on ads in general, not this specific person.
I hate ads too, I understand. Currently running pi-hole and ublock simultaneously. Have to use a burner phone to see my own ads
Its not specific on him Ads just drive me insane. I haven't really formed enough strong reasoning(to me) to say they shouldn't exist. So I'm at a halfway point of "advertise somewhere that isnt in front of me".
The platforms I use are very NOT local so it'd be pointless. Mainstream platforms are invasive with their data collection that would allow his ads to be specifically targeted and do well there, getting put in front of people who might actual use his service.
pls don't go to TikTok, I use it
TikTok's already full of ads and barely hidden sponsored posts though
Reminds me of a quote I once read of "marketing being a game of diminishing returns".
When you find a working marketing solution, it's just a matter of time when it dries out, because of competitors and overall saturation.
Yes but it's possible that the marketing channel is very profitable before drying out. Also the less a channel is known the more it will take to reach saturation. So there might be channels that are very profitable and well hidden, the problem is that by definition it might be too hard/expensive to find them.
I can't rule out competition here, definitely part of it - cost per click has gone up a lot over the years
They recently changed the max results per page from 100 to 10 and they're suing serpapi. They've basically killed their google newspaper archive.
Not happy with google.
And it's become clear to me how little of the open web, and top 100k sites they've fully indexed, I used to have a lot more faith in them.
I don't know if Google is dead, but what I know is this:
For the first time since 1995 my default method to research information on the web does not involve any traditional search engine anymore.
I can't find it, but there's a good graph that shows Google search decline in share to GPT, but it excludes Gemini. With Gemini, it stays relatively on par. That's pretty much the answer with where one goes. LLMs are higher intent than search could ever be, and they are closer to you selling to yourself than a store selling to you since they have all of your user context
If you believe markets to be a future discounting mechanism, then they're sure as hell saying Google "figured something out" in the last year, even vs OpenAI [1]
[1] https://x.com/firstadopter/status/1993464859376468102/photo/...
Just trying to find out what this guy actually does is hard. It’s a page of links linking to another page of links, repeat. Where is the thing? The content? The product? It just feels a bit disconnected from patterns users expect and delivery mechanisms users are comfortable with in 2025. It’s almost a 1995 style pastiche of intent with no payoff.
?? There is one link that takes you to his business. It’s kids parties (birthdays, etc) entertainment (Or corporate events). Think performers doing magic acts, juggling, comedy, balloons, etc. it really wasn’t that difficult to find out.
You must be referring to my personal Blog and Tutorial Site. It's messy, and serves no purpose other than to talk about whatever I am interested in at the time. Sometimes other people are also interested. And it's 14 years old now, so yeah.
If you need a payoff, click the Patreon link banner on top and go support development of my Open Source LED Poi!
The old decentralized Internet is dying out and being replaced by a few apps under the total control of a few companies.
I'm not sure much can be done about this. At least the physical world is still the same.
> At least the physical world is still the same
You mean the physical world where businesses are signing up with companies to put AI enabled cameras all over their properties and sell your data? Why not some nice dynamic pricing on their digital price bars next (oops, we are already there).
I only go to small local specialty shops within walking distance of my house, none of which has such sophisticated equipment.
Where I live, the trend has been to make spaces more walkable and with more nature and green spaces.
Hugged to death right now, therefore: https://web.archive.org/web/20251229204141/https://www.circu...
His actual entertaiment bussiness is down,
https://bigtop.co.za/
They are a circus for hire (events) https://web.archive.org/web/20250424004511/https://bigtop.co...
Located in Durban, South Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban
He got too much exposure by stating Adworks no longer works?
Oh no, adtech is dying. I guess we'll all have to compete through quality of products and services and not gaming a rigged system designed to reward anything that maximizes the profit of the global surveillance adtech machine.
This gives me warm fuzzy feelings. It's nowhere near good, but this is better than it was.
I wish that were true, but I don't think it's dying, I think it's metastasizing.
Ads will ingress deeper into what were trusted layers -- embedded in text and video in a seemingly organic way. GenAI tools make this possible -- to splice a 20 second mention of something into a stream, or rewrite a paragraph injecting a subtle product placement.
We will develop new mental antibodies for this, we always do. Silver lining of sorts -- while short-form video content is making people illiterate, perhaps literacy will become a calm refuge once again.
> to splice a 20 second mention of something into a stream
I'm seeing the start of this already, AFAICT. There have been a couple of YouTube videos with embedded ads that YouTube flipped over to a YouTube ad at exactly the point the sponsor part started.
Google is almost certainly getting ready to use AI to splice out in stream ads and replace them with Google ads.
The biggest problem is platform scale, imo - platforms grow so big as to make the network effects confer an invulnerability to regulation or moderation, and then get exploited to squash competition, either through legal action, acquisition, suppression, or sometimes simple inertia. Ubiquitous reach and total control over the platform made it irresistible to bad faith operators, politicians, activists, and rent-seekers. AI has a good shot at completely fragmenting those technologies at a fundamental level.
We should be resisting any ad injection into ChatGPT, Claude, etc maintaining a firewall between what's acceptable in a paid product and what's not, and as long as open source Chinese models roughly keep parity, the big US labs can't pivot hard into exploiting users for ad revenues. Private hosting and bots are almost as good as ChatGPT with UI and UX, within a few percentage points as good in capabilities, and the pressure to go elsewhere is minimal. If they drive off a whole lot of independence minded users, they risk creating a community of people who'll create a very slick, workable alternative, while paying only a tenth or less what the frontier labs charge. As long as that dynamic cripples the efforts of big labs to enshittify, there's a good shot that the entire ecosystem fundamentally evolves to something better. I hope, anyway - it could just explode into a grotesque mess of user exploitation and yet more of the same.
I think at some point you'll be able to have good-enough AI on your phone to carry everywhere you go, and it'll do all the ad filtering and opsec and digital hygiene for you - everyone will have a high quality competent tech nerd in their pocket looking out for their best interests, and it won't just be a niche rebel nerd thing anymore.
>good-enough AI on your phone to carry everywhere you go
Eh, if Google/Apple allows you to put it on your phone, which is highly doubtful at this point. Google would outright directly ban that kind of competition in the name of security. Apple would just ban an AI like that in the name of security even though it doesn't actually compete with them.
I love your vibe but unfortunately I don't share your optimism. The interregnum between monopolies gets exponentially shorter as the money printing gets exponentially faster. What was maybe 20 years of "OK-ish" after say WW2 got down to a few years in the 90s when internet was worth browsing, from Google to AI could be just months..
Isn’t it just AIs that have an agenda? That lie to you? That use a directive to persuade you to do / purchase something under the guise of authority?
ChatGPT, etc. right now is the early web where everything was free and everyone wondered how it would make money.
Soak it up because it won’t last long.
Your business seems well suited to advertising through short form content so I wish you lots of success with transitioning away from Adwords.
Thanks, yeah I see lots of video editing in my future
Perhaps catering towards TikTok experiences, help them make the videos that they then share with their friends.
‘Pic or it didn’t happen’ has now been replaced by ‘TikTok or it didn’t happen.’ Is it possible to enjoy something without there being video evidence of it? According to my gf and her female friends the answer appears to be no.
Tell me about it - my mother was a librarian, I prefer text content, but have to face facts now I guess
Seriously, one random website getting less traffic means "Google is dead"? I imagine if you hit your toe, you call it "end of the world"? This sort of posts should be illegal. Flagged.
“Google is dead” feels overstated. What is actually breaking is the click based retrieval and attribution model once answers start getting synthesized upstream.
When discovery is mediated by LLMs, ranking a page is no longer sufficient because the system is not choosing a single best document. It is assembling an answer from spans that fit its internal representation of the problem, which quietly invalidates many of the assumptions SEO and ads were built on.
You can see this shift in the kinds of services being offered now. Instead of focusing on links, keywords, or bid optimization, teams are spending time on structured content that breaks cleanly into answerable fragments, on entity relationships and schema that make concepts legible to models, and on persona driven content that anticipates how questions will be interpreted rather than how pages will rank.
Measurement is shifting as well. Instead of impressions and clicks, people are running prompt level tests, checking whether their content shows up across different models, and tracking inclusion and citation patterns rather than traffic. In many cases, strong traditional pages disappear entirely from answers while smaller, better structured sources surface.
From the outside this looks like traffic declining. Internally it feels more like a loss of observability, where you cannot tell whether you were excluded, partially used, or summarized away into latent knowledge.
Google will likely face the same issue as AI Mode expands. Generating answers is not the hard part. Defining what visibility means when the retrieval layer is no longer exposed is.
For posterity, if anyone can ever find this comment amongst all the others:
We went with Instagram ads, where we have the most followers. The result: 4 paid bookings in 48 hours - all confirmed leads from the new Instagram ad campaign.
Blog post updated.
Googles Search Ad revenue is dead, but the business is diversified and positioned for change. As of 2024:
Search Ads and Partner Revenue = 230bn Youtube = 36bn Cloud = 40bn
Say they drop 100bn on search revenue. How well are they positioned to convert their user platform and search crawling infrastructure onto Gemini, and introduce an advertising platform into LLMs to replace what they had? I imagine they are as well positioned as OpenAI.
I would lose a lot of sleep if I paid out for puts on them.
Such thick tension in the air waiting for the first courageous company to place ads on their LLM chats and tools.
They can spare their ad income falling for a while, but making the first move is always risky. Should they let openAI go first and fail?
Where do you go now? You go make sure LLMs know about your site, you welcome the herds of bot crawlers and pray someone breaks the standstill before your business falters.
Watching other people use Google, the predominant method of searching for information involves a query followed by getting their answer from the AI summary that appears above any search results.
I'm not sure what impact this would be having on Adwords, but another commenter mentions that Google isn't hurting in the ad revenue department.
While TFA is anecdote, the author mentions maintaining their spend, being gifted adword budget, and getting lower returns so increasing spend.
This suggests adword revenue is up, conversion to adword 'dollar' balances is inflating those balances, so both return per dollar in is down and even more down is return per adword balance dollar.
It's a leading indicator that quarterly-return focused Google must be scrambling to fix right now - they inflated themselves out of Q4 2025 but 2026 is a question mark, or to parle some Boxton Matrix, is the cash cow dying and if so is the extension strategy ad injection in AI responses, product placement in your AI videos, background changes in your family snaps, etc.
I know very little about online marketing, but my Googler marketing friend told me that just 6 months ago everybody would Google search three word terms: “best Chinatown dumpling”
But now people Google search: “my boyfriend is coming to town for the holidays and we are going to Chinatown and I want to have delicious dumplings with him because it was what we had on our first date, where should we go?”
So he now works to sell AdWords properly in that environment. I am wondering how or if OP took that into account with their new spend. What are other people doing?
I’ve also heard (probably via post+comments here on HN) that the new SEO is making tons of AI slop info pages on the site, not for humans but for AI crawlers to slurp, and then refer from prompts.
Instagram (one of the potential targets of the author to replace Google Ads) became unusable for me with this last update, where they make you wait for ads to finish.
Not that I ever used it much (in fact, after all these years, I still didn't wrap my mind around anything but simple posts), but now, I basically only go there to do a post about a group I have (and that I had to remove from Meetup because Meetup is equal shares of terribly bad and terribly expensive) and answer some messages.
There's a generation (in fact several) of people that still want to meet in person, and the platforms that allowed us to create and join groups for it (Meetup was great for that during a golden period of 3-4 years) are all turning into garbage.
This post and these comments give me low confidence in our HN community. No one here seems to understand ad platforms.
Google is far from dead. It still has the majority of the world’s online ad revenue, with Microsoft coming in second, then Meta at a far third. People assume that TikTok and Insta _must_ have the most since they assume that’s what all of their friends use, but even though they’re growing, they’re still not there yet.
Video ads on YouTube and others have a lot of play also, and everyone thinks of the TV commercials played during the Super Bowl.
But Google is still f-ing everywhere.
It’s fine to call them dying, but are they really when they are best positioned for ads in AI? OpenAI or Anthropic don’t have the data about users that Google has. There’s a reason that Buffett invested in Alphabet recently.
The real story isn't that Google Ads stopped working, it's that attention moved somewhere ads can't follow. You can't buy placement in a Discord server or an iMessage group chat. If this is the new normal, the entire ad-supported internet is running on borrowed time.
Reminds me of the whale oil business being replaced by petroleum. Except the ad-based economy was effectively a google monopsony. I'm surprised the OP managed to make ad revenue for a decade, but to me at always seemed about casino-ish and snake-oily. A decade is impressive but I think we all knew where this was going. I think the question is: will another monopsony for ads arise or will it be content based only? It seems YouTUbe is poised to be the next google since more people watch YouTube than cable, so the audience is captive since there's no alternative (yes I realize Google owns YouTube). But that's still a parasitic economy sucking from google. "Where to go now?" depends on if another ad server can gain dominance, otherwise the answer is "nowhere".
The AdWords platform is extremely complicated nowadays, and try as I might I can’t get any impressions from it. I then went through a period with an AdWords specialist from their team who also couldn’t get any impressions. It’s like they don’t want or need my money.
Here's the business model in a nutshell: If you want AI to recommend your business for some purpose, you must pay to have it included in the training corpus. And you will pay fees every time those vectors get used for outputs. And if you don't pay, you don't get mentioned.
Google Ads started charging me $5 per click on low traffic search keywords this week, meanwhile YouTube ads are still 20 cents a click (presumably to keep up with Meta)
They're having a laugh if they think we'll keep paying that for no actual leads.
Chegg’s decline is a concrete example of how AI search is changing the web
There’s been a lot of debate about whether Google’s AI Overviews and tools like ChatGPT are actually harming publishers. One publicly traded company’s timeline is worth looking at: Chegg.
What happened (with sources):
2021: Chegg launched Uversity, a platform for educators to share academic content. (Wikipedia)
2023: ChatGPT emerged as a serious competitor in homework help. Chegg responded by launching CheggMate, its own AI product built on OpenAI’s models. (Wikipedia)
Late 2024: Chegg reported accelerating subscriber declines, widely attributed to users shifting to free AI tools instead of paid study platforms. (WSJ, company filings)
Feb 2025: Chegg sued Google, alleging that AI Overviews reduced traffic to Chegg by answering questions directly in search results, harming acquisition and revenue. (Search Engine Land, Reuters)
May 2025: Chegg laid off ~22% of its workforce (≈248 employees), citing competitive pressure from AI and changes in search behavior. (Reuters)
Oct 2025: Chegg announced another round of layoffs (~45%, ≈388 employees), explicitly referencing “the new realities of AI” and reduced traffic from Google to content publishers. (Reuters / SF Chronicle)
What the data suggests (more broadly):
Independent studies show that when Google AI Overviews appear, users are significantly less likely to click through to external sites.
“Zero-click” searches (where users get answers directly on the results page) have increased, especially for informational and educational queries.
The impact isn’t uniform — some publishers report minimal effects — but content that answers how-to, homework, or factual queries appears most exposed.
Why this matters:
Chegg isn’t a small blog or SEO-driven site. It’s a public company with audited financials, legal disclosures, and incentives not to exaggerate under scrutiny. Its filings and lawsuit don’t claim AI is “bad” — they claim that traffic flows are structurally changing.
This doesn’t prove AI search is “killing the web,” but it does show:
AI answers are substituting clicks, not just competing for them.
Entire business models built on informational content are under pressure.
“Build better content” may not be sufficient when answers are synthesized upstream.
Curious how others here see it:
Is this a temporary transition problem?
Or are we watching the unbundling of the open web’s traffic economy in real time?
The educational and informational queries were always the least valuable from a monetization standpoint. Chegg Answers could rank for these low competition (also low commercial intent) terms-- think queries like phrases from textbooks students would be querying. There is virtually 0 way (for people besides Chegg) to monetize these types of queries. Now Google can answer these queries directly, albeit with the assumption it costs them slightly more to serve these AI responses than a search query.
AI overviews are breaking the implicit "contract" for informational sites-- "we will create content to rank on Google with the expectation of monetization via display ads, mailing list growth and/or sales commissions of some sort." If these sites now lose 90% of their traffic, they simply go extinct. We have already seen the destruction of the old web era sites and the walled gardens being built. How many new sites, at the same frequency as 15 years ago, 1) get built and 2) get visibility without relying on one of the fickle walled gardens for an audience?
Google will probably figure out a way to monetize these informational queries by building better profiles of users. Or most likely, they start slipping in commercially biased responses-- either natively or disclosed, but probably based on all user conversations instead of the current one.
I think it's time for a new way of discovering products. My ideal would be some sort of site that I can go to, to find services and products in my local area. There could also be national and international sections, with user ranked news of new interesting products in given categories.
For example, with video games I can go to sites like www.rockpapershotgun.com or others, or forums related to games, to see what the new products coming out. That's perfect in my world. No ads in my search, no ads in my email, no ads in youtube or whatever. But when I'm interested in seeing what's new, I can, on my terms, go and check out the new products.
Anecdotally, this article seems to match with what I am witnessing regarding browsing habits. I am planning a big trip with others and everything is being found via social media apps; destination ideas, experiences, cafes, accommodation, etc.
Google is not dead in this case; what is dead is Ads on top of Google. I think the best way to fix this is to ensure that your website is optimized for searches in Google and in the new AI world.
Every website should be optimized for searches in ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude,...
Is this really about Tiktok or about AI and how people are consuming the web? Used to be all web, then web+Tiktok,etc, now only AI+Tiktok, etc? I think I go to normal websites way less than I used to. Maybe everyone is doing that?
Logged on to say Kagi[1]
[1]not an employee, sponsor, or autonomous agent of the above company
The article is about using Google for advertising, and that would be a far stretch for Kagi. Thank you for your support anyway ;)
> I am AI assisted, very fast!
This feels like one of the most surreal things I have read in a while, believing that the blog is authentically written by a real person. I can't put my finger on why.
I do feel like it's maybe time to rewatch BSG.
lol I meant coding, can't stand AI slop web content myself. I wrote all the words - what's BSG?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_...
Oh right Battlestar Galactica! I watched that like 3 times already, best sci-fi ever
We fought the toasters, and the toasters won.
“Research shows” Lool!! Ask anyone in their teens or 20s even 30s. They’ll all answer what you did in the article. Short attention spans are ruling and so are those social media applications you mentioned.
There is always chaos when a central authority fails, and the "main home page for the Internet" model has definitely failed. AI killed it.
How long before we see sponsored ads placed alongside prompt answers?
The very concept of people going to a private digital plaza was very problematic in the first place and arguably still is. Humanity's drive towards convenience is the source of marvels but also many ills imo. Google's decline is a chance for change. Change towards something better. Not that I am optimistic that we will get there imo but the opportunity window is opening now. Don't look for a new digital overlord. Embrace the new age
You’re definitely not alone in this, I’ve seen similar drops from Google Ads recently. It feels less like bad optimization and more like the ground shifting under everyone.
Apparently you should be getting ready to buy ad campaigns from LLM companies because they are going to inject ads into the responses soon. Young people are using LLMs like crazy in my experience.
That site loosing revenue mentioned in the post (https://bigtop.co.za/) doesn't even load for me.
If it's loose then you might want to screw it on.
Sorry, couldn't resist! The correct word here is lose, when something is loose it means that it's not fastened or constrained, like a loose knot
As it should be with all things.
I pivoted away from google search (duckduckgo instead primarily) but even then, the majority of "information" I'm looking for goes instead to chatgpt.
It wouldn't surprise me if physical advertising, as mentioned in the post, makes a comeback. Especially coupled with magazines etc apparently making a comeback too.
Also, a lot of ads now have QR codes so you can tell which physical ads are driving versus traffic versus those that aren't.
e.g. the "half of my advertising is a waste but I don't know which half" is not true anymore if you are using specific QR codes per location/advertisement.
I assume physical still works. LIDL closed their shop in our neighborhood, so we stopped going unless their paper ads were interesting. Then they decided with a lot of fanfare to go all-in on digital, and as they decided we should want their ads we should install their app. Well, naughty us, we didn't. We simply stopped shopping there completely. A few months later, the paper ads are back (with a lot less fanfare), and no other shop followed their lead, so I assume LIDL was hurting hard.
I'm not a marketer (anymore), but as an end user, I feel that Google has shot themselves in the foot with the horrendous search experience they provide these days. This notion and topic of discussion is becoming more commonplace online.
"Google results are just AI and sponsored content anymore." We've all seen it.
Kagi
Kagi will be dead if google and alike are dead.
Buying access to web search indices is not the same as having one.
(I love them but this is the hard truth)
Kagi is building their own index. There are also other open indexes. Over time these can replace the big corporate indexes. The hard truth is that the big players in search are dead. They are now the yahoo of search, with landing pages full of ads and results that are primarily ads.
See their revenue (number of paid users is not a secret): something around $7M annually? It was half of that not so long ago (glad, that the userbase is growing).
With their current pricing they are out of their league of having any full-blown index, crawlers, people, what have you.
I would say year ago I was amazed how they are alive at all (unless I am missing something in their funding).
A little over 15 years ago you could index the web with a small cluster. I remember people doing doing it with Cassandra or Elasticsearch. I'm sure you'd need a much bigger cluster, but outside video and images I imagine it's still doable even for a small organization, especially if you're filtering out content farms. Plus, there are many organizations interested in having access to an index, and I'm pretty more than a few currently running their own index and selling to analytics firms.
Index is one thing, great search over it is another.
A competitive, general-purpose web search engine with its own full index is _brutally_ hard and expensive.
This is the reason there are only a few world-class like russian yandex, chinese baidu (to not state the obvious names like google).
They already have world class search technology. In terms of indexing they only need to index the most important content. There is so much slop now and it doesn't matter at all if that is indexed. IMO their strategy of focusing on smaller sites with human curated content is correct. They can make some deals to index some of the big walled gardens and that's pretty much world class right now.
What do you think a site like Google is giving you these days? They are explicitly bad at indexing the small web. Their search technology is not better than Kagi, and made worse by ads and LLM ad bias. So what is this big "world class" thing they do that can't be replicated?
The web is not the same place it was years ago. Indexing all the slop and scams and ads is not useful to me as a consumer.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Though my gut tells me the probability of their 100% own full-blown search is very-very low.
From the current point in time few people are in the market for a paid privacy focused search.
Most of the time I spend on kagi this year is a glorified bookmark to imdb, wiki, and what have you: around 700 queries per month, which is basically the same as I have in chatgpt according to yearly stats.
But I will continue be a paid Kagi user.
Kagi depends on their being an open web to crawl. The incentive to publish on the open web is gone though.
Search engines can usually search the closed web as well.
Also, incentives are super high for businesses to create quality content for the open web to drive business. For example a car tire manufacturer could publish reliable restaurant reviews in order to encourage driving.
Please read the article before commenting. It's not about what you think it is
In case you didn't read the article, it's about Google Adsense no longer being an effective way to advertise.
I thought SoMe replaced google for this sort of stuff like 6 years ago? GoogleAds are prob fine if you have a big retail business or something, but for anything creative some has been the marketing route I have seen everyone doing for years.
And looking at their site… Hacky creative coding. Mate, AI replaced you like 2 years ago.
Anecdotally it seems like a lot of people go to whatever LLM they have access to and ask it what to do. Surely the next frontier of advertising products is directly injecting recommendations into the response from the LLM. Or at least make the answer incorporate products and services somehow, similar to how influencers do paid content in a seamless way alongside their main content.
This is impolite but it might be that the services you offer are in decreasing demand in general.
Your return customers know what a great show you do and it becomes tradition and they obviously love it.
But the difficulty finding new clients (something we all face) may be partially due the world moving on.
Google has drowned in irrelevance for me. I barely use it (i use DuckDuckGo), and it has massively de-indexed my websites for no apparent reason. I don't even bother to look at Google Search Console
One anecdote, but I have a brick and mortar business and Adwords leads have fallen off a cliff year over year. Since AI stuff started getting pushed harder we've gotten fewer impressions and fewer conversions. Some of it is economic headwinds but also Google is just a black box we throw money into and pray it will send us business.
Trying something different myself. Enough is enough, I have said goodbye to AdWords for good now I think
The author should try Google Local Services Ads instead of Google Ads. I think Google cannibalizes Google Ads with LSA.
Thank you I will look it up, never heard of those
I think this article title misled me a bit... Google seems to be fine but it's no longer driving traffic through Ad Words. I think that in particular is really getting messed up by AI since people often don't go to any Web site once an AI agent answers their question.
If google is dead, I sure hope they won't sell my gmail and google drive data to the highest bidder.
Google never sells your data to anyone. Why would they sell the primary data that they themselves use to determine how to show you ads? Doing so means a deep-pocketed new advertising platform can just buy data from Google and get started with competing against Google on their primary revenue source. It’s like having a goose that lays golden eggs and selling the goose. It’s corporate suicide. I’m surprised anyone on HN even believes Google will sell your data. It takes five seconds of thinking to dispel that notion.
Google gets given significant tax breaks in many countries. Maybe it is selling it to agencies who could not obtain that info legally
Google shares your data with ad-tech companies via its real time bidding.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-...
this post is title-gore. Gmail and drive aint going anywhere.
Already did.
Well, the cycle is over.
I remember the rise and the fall of AltaVista search engine.
I remember the rise of Google that was able to circumvent all the "old days" SEO efforts by spamming keywords in the HTML headers. Then everyone was trying to guess how to game Google page rank algo.
Finally people learned how to cheat Google, searches on many topics are returning endless pages of spam, marketing content that is supposed to earn AdSenens money (Google's "disruption" of online ads, better than all those cringe banners, that, eventually, destroyed Google search).
Right now Bing is working better for me (Bing! WTF?), for some stuff I use Yandex (shrug), but most of the stuff goes through AI, if you ask them to provide source of the information and you check it, this seems to be working fine...
For the time being, until people learn how to feed AI bots with the manipulated content they want. This will be probably more complicated, but it will happen (gaming page rank was also harder than adding "right" words to HTML keywords), unless AI providers will be careful with what they give as a food for their hungry Nvidia GPUs.
But this will be more expensive than blindly scanning the internet. That's why I see here a proper place where governments should step in, finance curation of the content for AI, as this will benefit society in a big way.
I see here an opportunity for smaller players, like Mistral, who can get some gov/EU funding and provide more quality than others who will devour whatever they find.
Ironically, Google’s Ads division and CEO have blame for this. The Ads division forced the search division to weaken the quality of search results and Google’s CEO sided with them.
I'm amazed people on HN still use Google tbh. What for? Do you expect them to get better or treat your eyeballs and attention with more dignity anytime soon?
There's Kagi, Brave Search, even DDG would be better.
Is there such a thing as a good ad? I've always blocked them on all platforms.
Looking at instagram where I don't block anything, most of what it suggests to me are soft porn or soft scams (generic chinese dropships marketed as a unique innovation).
I get really good recommendations from Insta. Leather jackets, motorcycle gear, Swiss microbrand watches.
I mean, you mean "I've always tried to block 'obvious' ads in the places I expect obvious ads to be".
The thing is the world of ads is far larger and more complicated than that. Just think of product placement in movies? That is an ad, have you stopped watching most movies?
What about content that is a thinly veiled ad? What about a set of bots that follows everything you post on line, and when it's little AI core figures out you are looking for something makes a suggestion under a post where you're asking questions?
Google isn’t dead, but it’s no longer the single answer. Even Mark Zuckerberg recently acknowledged how fast Google is improving, which explains why Meta is pushing AI harder. Still, competing shouldn’t mean replacing what already works.
> Even Mark Zuckerberg recently acknowledged how fast Google is improving
AI. I thought he was referring to how fast Google is improving their AI.
Search though?
But what's the endgame? What if Google has the "best" AI offering if most of their revenue that comes from ads is gone?
They'll presumably monetize their AI (more) on both ends: getting you to pay for more access and getting advertisers to pay to be mentioned more often in the outputs. I mean that isn't really a bad position for them if you "using the Internet" degrades into you just sitting there typing queries in their Web app and never going anywhere else.
psa, "is comprised of" is almost never correct. "comprises" means "is composed of". so when people say X is comprised of Y they really mean "X comprises Y" or "X is composed of Y"
Try contacting YouTube creators in your area. Much more cost efficient than any other kinds of ads especially if you pick channels with your target audience IF you can actually get creators to promote you (most won't reply).
No matter which new technology arises on the horizon... what is tainted is not internet, not AI. Is the entire purpose on follow dollars.
I hated when needed to see Google reports for ads. And be in a rush for SEO. This was a game of rats, no real knowledge, just attempts to satisfy an Algorithm that changed on weekly base.
I quit Facebook / Instagram / Google ads 6 years ago. Why? Because my advertisement was feeding the system on who show concurrent advertisement, collecting habits of MY customers.
So the system is broken. Stop pursuing the american dream and the wild capitalism. This new generation is building immunity to many of these things, at least until their engineers find a way to take control of these minds.
About where to go... I think we need to be satisfied with less, in the sense we need to buy a new car every year, nor new clothes just for fashion, neither gadgets just by compulsive appeal.
Buy the best you can, use it the most before discard it. Exchange fast food for what your granparents used to be fed. Know that you can be happy by yourself, not by what they said you need in the last 100 years. Life is that, the way is that. But many fall in the western system propaganda.
It's only going to get worse from here. Everything is trending towards zero for any kind of online service as it gets easier to make software with LLMs. There just simply won't any moat left.
Judging by the post this guy advertises his kids entertainment business to young people. With recent crackdowns on age verification etc. it could be his ads are no longer reaching the audience they used to.
I work in private events and the answer is definitely Facebook. Facebook ads have been better for quite some time. Targeting is a harder but also the CPCs are a lot lower so you can spray and pray a bit more.
Thanks, we tried them before but many years have passed and things have changed. Our new Instagram campaign just bore fruit in the first hour (4 WhatsApp enquiries with $1.50 spent!), will be looking at FB also
I was intrigued to see this trending, because it seems to contradict what Google has been saying on earnings calls.
It also made me wonder if this reflects conditions for individuals / SMEs rather than large corporate accounts. And I didn’t expect the story to come out of Durban - I would’ve guessed the US.
I haven't been to Durban lately, but my understanding is that the broader SA economy has been under pressure (high unemployment, etc.), and that can hit smaller/local businesses first. So it could simply be a rough patch for your market right now.
That said, if you’re seeing campaigns picking up on other platforms, you might be onto something, at least for your niche.
Looking at your website/content: you’re selling an experience, and this seems like a product that really benefits from strong visual marketing. Make it easy for someone new to "get it" in the first 10 seconds.
Three ideas: 1) Ride local trends: build demos around what’s currently hot in SA/Durban and showcase that with the Magicpods in short, punchy videos. 2) Consider adjacent use cases: beyond magic shows, this could be compelling for advertising, especially at conventions (e.g., ICC). That might be a natural expansion path if event bookings are slowing. 3) Try Airbnb Experiences, or local platforms, like daddysdeals.co.za :-)
It is fantastic to see how a research paper by Google fueled the force that might kill Google. Attention is all that is sold by google. It is an attention broker. Now that very attention is thinly distributed, Attention as the most precious food for businesses, is under fierce struggle. Google has ruled the city center area will all the attention sinks, the billboards. But AI is the new mafia on the scene that kidnapped all attention and hoarded it inside the AI data centers.
The mainstream leaving Google search and the general web would be a chance for both getting better again. A new equilibrium will establish itself one way or the other.
It's a chance.. But which for-profit environments are not going to do whatever is necessary to try to win that role and how will the worst of them not have the most profitable model?
We don’t know any details on OP’s ad campaign. Did they happen to make any errors? Is holiday the most competitive time? Bids?
As a game theorist and a cynic, my go-to response when I hear of non-zero-sum games is “yipee, both sides can lose!”
You become a trusted source of data for AI chatbots (hopefully in somewhat ethical way for end users). Look into generative language optimization.
Google is a waste of brainpower.
I wish it would actually die so that all those talented engineers could move on to solving non-ad problems.
The traffic goes to mobile and AI. Google is much stronger than ever before, in mobile and AI, not just web.
you wrongly assumed about tiktok or shortform content. In last 6 months I only visited google for 2 things. Searching and looking at reviews of restaurants or shops. And of course navigation in maps. Other than that I never use google now a days. I'm sure there are a lot like me.
-to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Wait I know Google search to content sites is largely dead, but I thought Google ads still worked fine.
I would say Kagi but they need to start doing their own indexing for that to be a real future
Well, there used to be altavista but it seems Yahoo bought them out. So I guess Yahoo?
An instant drop in 50% means something else is off. The shift to llm's has been happening already for the last years.
Its more likely their your ranking dropped. Or a competitor got ahead of you. Google is still main source of leads for service businesses.
If you are old & previously ranked well the LLM's will also mention you similar to how Google did.
GOOG +65% YTD. Opposite of dead.
Though, that doesn't really conflict with the story. He increased his ad spend before he figured out it wasn't working. Which would be more $$ for Google.
is super ineffective, indeed. if you need to pay 20$ to get s.o. to pay you 50$ for a service/product, well in all honesty calling people one by one and giving them 10$ is more likely to result in sale.
Both of these things can be true:
- Google, the company, is doing pretty well in the stock market.
- Google, the advertising company, isn't generating good ROI for its advertising customers.
From Google's point of view, they've been very gunshy about having ads be their only revenue stream for years; I wouldn't be surprised that the consequence is the value there is drying up.
Let's answer the question. Hard trending data on ads says everything is normal.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven...
Advertising revenue being up is also consistent with the linked article, since the writer had to increase ad spend to get any results before giving up entirely.
It's also not broken out -- for instance, if people move to advertising on YouTube instead of AdWords that's still revenue for Google.
The article is specifically about the decline of Adwords, not the company as a whole.
unfortunately, google is better than ever
AI Bubble
whats that?
A few things to determine if what you're experiencing is actually Google "being dead"
1. Check your search volume. Use Google Trends or the method I will share below. 2. Check how you spent in December vs how you spent during a previously great time. Understand if it's a volume issue or a conversion issue 3. See if anyone new entered your auction. If they did, find out what they're saying
-- 1a) Search Volume
Checking search volume: In the era of broad match, this is one of the most underrated approaches to diagnosing issues. Take a look at your `search exact match impression share` relative to your impressions on a few of your top keywords. Then measure out if search volume for your business is actually decreasing. Then, use the following rubric to diagnose futher:
1. Not decreasing. Move on to the next item 2. 5-10% decrease and competitive auction. If you have a decrease AND a competitive auction, a 20% drop in efficiency could be explained. 3. 5-10% decrease and a not-so-competitive auction. If this is the case, the drop in volume may not be what's causing your issues.
-- 1b) Click volume
Check your exact match impression > click rate. Similar to the last approach, this helps diagnose if there are SERP feature changes which could decrease the amount of clicks you're receiving despite demand remaining flat.
If this is the case, take a look at the SERP and find the new winners.
-- 2) Segment comparison
Compare December YOY and see what changed. Are you serving to a different age range? Different search term mix? Increased spend to search partners? Are the headline combinations which are serving different?
-- 3) Auction changes
Have you checked your auction insights? Are new competitors being more or less aggressive? If so, what are their headlines? Are they offering an easier booking experience than you are?
And... if Google is actually dead, you might try:
1. Meta ads. Turn off audience network, make sure you've got the conversions API set up, and see what happens. Expect leads to be lower intent. Make your creative dead simple. "If you're looking for kid party entertainment in Northdene..." Start with $20/day optimizing for leads.
2. Improve your form. I see typeform-style-forms do better than the long one you have.
3. (Maybe) If you don't already track `closed (won)` conversions into your google ads account, that could help. I find when I start tracking which searches turn into deals, I can restructure my account to de-prioritize the junk leads.
4. (Maybe) Add a soft form to each of your service pages. Basically an embedded form which starts by asking people softball questions like "How Old Are The Kids At Your Party." Once people start a form they're much more likely to complete it, even if the questions are very basic.
5. (Maybe) Add a way to give a phone call. Phone call leads convert 30-50% better in my experience. But, this isn't an option for every
Thanks for the info. Will definitely be doing a post mortem after I finish scrambling for new work opportunities
you can buy ads on instagram, fb, tiktok, reddit, youtube, amazon, apple iOS apps, the M$ windows start menu (apparently), and soon OpenAI (gemini gotta be following right)!
maybe the issue is that you site bigtop.co.za literally does not load
Perhaps, click fraud?
Is there any new powerful platform/aggregator in your market?
I don't know what click fraud is but it's a very small entertainment agency market in Durban, South Africa's 3rd largest city. We only advertised locally (specified in AdWords)
Click fraud is malicious activity where someone runs bots that click on ads for specific category keywords. For example, if this is a villa rental website, someone like competitors or a large platform, might use ad agencies that perform click fraud against the villa rental website to exhaust their budget and therefore get more traffic themselves. In the case of an entertainment agency, it might be other competitors interested in your traffic.
The first step you might take is to check that you are not advertising with AdWords partner networks, as they might be the reason for the clicks on your ads.
Second, you can check your server logs and verify clicks from Google Ads, especially the geolocation of those clicks. If they are not from your region and the visitors perform no action after viewing the first page, this is most probably click fraud.
I use our own open-source security platform (I'm a co-founder) for this purpose (1), as it's server-side and works even if bots aren't running JS. However, your website analytics might also be useful if they can collect events without JS.
1. https://github.com/tirrenotechnologies/tirreno
Shockingly, I did not consider malicious intent as a possible reason. I will look into it. Never did trust the partner networks though, it's not that anyway, just used plain old search network
I tried to visit your website to get a better idea, but found `Connection timed out Error code 522` by Cloudflare.
It's fine now, somehow got to #1 on Hacker News and 1000's of visitors did that. Learned something new about Cloudflare Cache Settings, it won't happen again
unlikely but they should check their invalid click rate to be sure
Invalid click rate is not always a reliable metric.
I've been dealing a lot with click fraud on Google Ads, and it's usually hard to detect it without special tools.
What’s your experience?
Off the shelf click fraud software (for search) has never been ROI-positive for me when I run in A/B tests.
Fou analytics is a fun tool though for social/native etc
Click farms that we had been dealing with for our clients did not render images on webpages during visits, therefore we put tirreno on the backend of the platform, plus added a 1px image that sends the same request to tirreno to spot the difference.
Page loading + no image loading = blacklist API.
Gross clickbait title, do better with your article titles.
Genuine question: how is Google not losing a tons of money yet?
Sorry in advance if this comes off as hostile, that's not my intent. I am genuinely wondering: You're in the business of advertising? And you're upset that Google isn't your golden goose anymore?
How long have you lived in Durban? Nice surfing pics.
20 Years now. I'm from Cape Town, but the weather here is better. And no need for a wetsuit!
Dreamy, I hope to make it out there one day. Heard good things about Mozambique as well.
Because everyone asking AI to do websearch for them
Where do you go know - maybe realize that ads make everyone around miserable and with this bitter understanding go through painful but necessary process of finding other means of earning money.
PS. Seriously.
It never really worked. Most businesses just paid for customers that were going to or already found them anyways.
Not saying ads don't work at all, they definitely increase awareness.
Yet if I turn off my ads my sales drop to nearly nothing, but when I turn them on again I get a steady flow of new customers as well as some repeaters who either forgot about us or needed a reminder to buy again, sometimes literally years later.
It all depends on how big you are, what you sell, and how people can or will find you. I sell something that some people REALLY want, but they will never think to Google if it exists, they just think it's not available anymore/end of story, and I rank #1 unpaid, it's frustrating.
Now I only have one ad platform I can get to work at this point and I've wasted so much money on others, trying again every few months, but they all seem to suck or I don't have the patience and pockets to try and figure them out compared to how I've figured out the one that works enough to make a living off of.
The response is ChatGPT.
They're going to add ads to their responses (if they didn't added it already), and people use it as search engine.
Google is in that game too with "AI Mode", stealing traffic from ChatGPT.
But as OP and other threads here highlighted, the other ~half of the gold sits in more fenced communities like WhatsApp, IG, Telegram, and other messaging and non-digital communities that are getting their "news" and "information" from viral shorts from IG, TikTok and YT Shorts.
> Right now, though – I’m broke. Anyone need a website or IOT project built? I am AI assisted, very fast!
Oh wow, this author is tone deaf to the entire situation that is occurring in the world right now. I just had a conversation with my 70 year old Aunt (no tech skills) about AI and its impact on the labor market and I used the example of how for the first time ever I actually believe she could build her own iPhone app by just talking to her computer. This is an hypothetical app that would have cost her $10k-100k or more in the very recent past. I really think the market for the very services this author is selling is evaporating or at least on hold while everyone is at least trying to diy it with AI.
that's true.Lots of people try to build app to solve their problem. ai make it easier. But I'm not sure if people want to make apps just like make a short
Maybe someone should tell Google.
It is not just Google Ads that are dead. Advertising in general, is dead.
No one wants this shit and no matter where you go, people will find a way to block your ads or leave the platforms they cannot easily block ads in.
As soon as you advertisers moved to the internet, you gave users the power to delete you, so thanks for that.
Your campaign on Google is dead.
Contextual ads is the answer. You sell shoes, go and advertise on fashion related sites. I don't want to see a shoe ad while I'm browsing a gaming site just because I did some relative search a week ago. It's so fucking annoying and I never understood why Google never bothered to try some alternative too. I don't mean completely replace behavioral targeting but at the very least try some contextual one too.
It’s not the advertising or eyeballs.
GenAI allows everyone to build their own stuff and find their customers without ads.
The ad business is doomed.
And if you think Gen-Z or Gen-Alpha are a capturable audience, I gotta bridge to sell you.
You have one slim hope. Engage with smart young people that are savvy at today’s comms and can create and edit their own content.
is this about the second single from Good Riddance?
my vote is for ATProto
let's take back the interwebs and have a single account where all apps store their data about you, which you can move around and also swap out clients for any data without companies blocking you
the site is loading forever now. hn crashed it hehe
I consider ads to be a cancer I hope it will die in every possible way.
Same. This blog post is actually good news
OK, but the poster is a party clown. How is he supposed to get business? He can't just show up to kids' birthdays when he hears them down the street.
Can someone explain why GOOG is still sky high despite this?
Great, now my server is crashing again. I thought Cloudflare was supposed to take care of this stuff
are you caching the HTML response or just the assets?
I can't remember I think it's just the assets though - seems to be surviving so far. How do you get it to cache everything, is that a paid thing?
Page rules should do it
Page rules did it!! thank you
Google and Google Ads are not one and the same.
The jump from the op's "i screwed up my google ads campaigns" to "Research shows that many young people are getting their information from short video platforms like TikTok"....
i mean, c'mon
If Google Ads was cut off from Google, would they still be profitable?
Can we also talk about how dogshit YouTube Search has been the last 2 years? Some videos have turned to shorts, but they're not searchable through their search API, making the feature pretty useless.
Another explanation is that when the cost of living is high, people reduce their spending on entertainment. If that's the case, no amount of advertising will materially shift your bottom line.
Now I wonder how long until AI chat tool are riddled with ads, and with shitty content because of people trying to game them just like they've been gaming search engines.
I am glad to not be the only one to come to a similar conclusion. But we need to go one step further: I believe that Google has become harmful to the world in its present form. I'll skip listing all reasons, as there are many other websites that detailed this already, as well as (ironically) youtube videos. The problem goes much deeper than "merely" Google's monopoly in regards to all that ad-money. This is indeed probably the biggest reason why Google sucks so much nowadays, but the problem really is much bigger than that; it also taps into politics, what with the orange King meta-protecting these mega-corporations and the tech-bros ruthlessly abusing the rest of the world. We need real change, substantial change. Fixing Google is one important step but not the only one - but let's focus on Google mostly here, to simplify things a little.
The big underlying problem is that Google has no real incentive to change the way how it operates. Its search engine, which they crippled, is not really that important to Google anymore compared to the ad-revenue and other business ventures here. AI is the current insanity rage and Google went for it too. When you cripple the search engine, you can sell more bullshit to people, fake-generate and hallucinate a world wide web that is controlled by these walled garden corporations (Facebook is probably the best example of a walled garden, but there are many similar; twitter run by a crazy oligarch too, "bla bla bla log in to read news bla bla bla" - never going to do that, so they cut off my access to an open world wide web here).
I do not think Google can be fixed with the current setup though. It will just continue to steal money by taking our data and interconnecting this with other greedy private interests, now represented by lobbyists running the USA (and also other places, of course; just the USA being bigger than the other places, economically).
Google has to be split up and removed. There is no other way to fix it anymore. They want down a path from which they can not change anymore, because any change means less revenue, and no corporation wants to do so on its own.
> Research shows that many young people are getting their information from short video platforms like TikTok and Instagram. We are trying ads on there.
Well - circusscientist adds to this problem. They depend on ads, so they contribute to the overall problem. The issue is not just Google here; it is also commercial interests who think they have a right to pester-harass people via irrelevant crap (aka ads). Google killed ublock origin. Google controls the web virtually via chrome. We have a conflict of interests here. Google has no reason to change this, and many companies think they need to use ads. This is a problem. I believe in an ad-free world. I don't want to see any ads. Many years of commercial interests confused people into thinking ads are the way to go. I disagree. I think ads are evil and must die. And companies that have no alternative business model, who rely on ads, also have to go. Google is just sitting on top of it all, acting as a greedy parasite.
> We have an email newsletter
They still think anyone cares about email spam. I never subscribe to any "newsletter". A better model is to read up on things WHEN YOU VISIT THE WEBSITE. This works on many private websites too such as github. I can read when I want to, not when some bot spams me down with this irrelevant stuff (and admittedly I would not read ads anyway, but my point is about DELIVERY versus VISITING something here).
> We also plan to do some actual physical advertising
So he chose confrontation.
> I am AI assisted, very fast!
Why would I want to give my money to anyone using ads or wanting to lower the overall quality via AI? That makes no sense. Some people are beyond hope.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Google is dead the day they remove their moto: Google is not evil
And by the way announced the world they are the source of evil!!
[dead]
[dead]
Get a real job
Not much chance of that at this point - I'm almost 50 years old and managed to make a living purely from performing so far (with a small exception of the pandemic, where I did coding mainly)
Look, the 90's Internet isn't cool anymore. Sorry. Things are cool for a while and then they're not.
Franchises die. It's still cool to say "The originals were really cool", and always will be, but now we're talking about now. Star Wars is uncool. There are people who sort of automatically praise it and subtly put down those who don't like they're aligned with a magnetic field, sure, but they're in their own world. Indiana Jones and Ghostbusters are uncool now. Star Trek is almost there. AI is not cool and never will be. Tiktok is cool, but soon everything that is uncool will descend upon it.
Sorry. Bananas blacken and apples get spots. Time moves on.
Downvoting isn't cool. Reply instead.
You're joking, but they're really trying hard to make cool things uncool.
I think it's not directly in their interest to make anything uncool. They're there to suck away some of it for themselves, that's all.
I don't know why people are so aggressively downvoting this. It's the honest truth.
I grew up before Google, I remember when it was just a useful search tool. Then an industry grew up around exploiting it in various ways and ads became a major revenue source for Google, completely changing the platform. I witnessed this entire online marketing/ad industry come into existence.
I have friends who worked in SEO for years. Very talented, smart people. But that industry is gone now. Likewise Google ads is clearly not long for this world as Google will probably get a lot more money leveraging their AI for product recommendations/sales etc.
People used creative thinking to create this industry, so the answer to "where do we go now?" is find the next one. It won't just be the same thing repeated, just like SEO and ad optimization where fairly major departures from the previous world of advertising and marketing they came from.
>I don't know why people are so aggressively downvoting this. It's the honest truth.
There you go.
"Cool" is precisely the problem. Cool is completely irrelevant to whether something is useful or valuable.
God no! Useful and valuable is incredibly cool! How could you write this?
Did you read the page? The context is very clear: a small business that had for years gotten a lot of its leads/customers from Adwords is seeing that Adwords ("Google" in context) is not working. They are then asking (other small businesses in the same situation, "where do we go now?").
There nothing about nostalgia, no real concern for Google as a company, or how the web used to work, etc. Just a small business trying to stay afloat.
Yes, Google is no longer producing good results for them. That is what I'm addressing.
It seems you didn't read the article, which doesn't tell anything about google being cool or uncool.
The title is "Google is dead".
To be fair, I find the title to be misleading.
That is fair. It's dead to me though.
That message still makes me laugth. That's a three cell comic strip with a silence in the middle.
I knew about duckduckgo for years and it was always too much friction to switch. I tried like 4 times but always went back to google when I had to research something quickly. Eventually the friction of using google became high enough though that the friction of switching was not that much higher. I’ve been using ddg and occasionally duck ai for over a year now.
Haha no wonder, check out the website its dodgy as f. https://bigtop.co.za/
This is actually the most legit thing I can think of that could be behind an ad. It looks like an actual small business that is using ads as a replacement for the yellow pages, presumably when people are searching for party entertainment. I had assumed that basically all online ads were just straight up scams.
That said, I don’t ever want to see ads for it either. If I lived in Durban and wanted a juggling act, I’d like to be able to find it, as I’m sure all their clients would. I wonder if the market is just very competitive, or if they don’t show up on regulular searches for some reason.
Funny how a simpler and self-made website is seen as "dodgy af" but geocity 90s mash of stuff is "nostalgic".
It's not the neatest but it feels real, like these guys are into entertainment for parties, not web design.
I’m not handing over money to 90s geocities.
Not enough layers of SPA and Tailwind for your taste?
Checked out as instructed, it somehow made me empathetic towards the OP. Not only the business completely harmless, it's the opposite: their job is trying to make people happy, and it's lovely.
Off-topic reply but I don't want to start another comment:
The problem about Google and AI has deeper layers: AI answers has trained users to not look into the source information (a.k.a websites), and websites are combating it by making themselves harder to crawl (for example, by enabling Cloudflare protection/verification), which in turn makes creating new search engine harder.
This down circle is currently unbreakable, which is a hellish situation for new comers, but great for established players such as Reddit, Facebook etc since they have internal search engine as well as mountains amount of content to provide.
If one day the big platforms (there are only handful of them) completely blocked Google from crawling them, that will be the true death of Google.
I agree, that site looks like the owners lack basic self-awareness. Surely they must use the modern internet and recognize the difference?
And if they’re unable to invest in their site or they’re simply shut out of the modern world, I’d assume the same applies to other aspects of their business as well.
Serious question: why do you find it dodgy?
Well, it's harshly put... bu not entirely untrue. The website would probably need to be refreshed.