I would argue, that most people actually do. They don't understand how search engines work. Its just a box, where you put what you search for and they provide answers. How do google gets those answers? They have no idea. Currently, I have only a remote idea how google provides those answers and I've implemented some searching myself back in the day, so how your nontechnical people could even understand this? They don't even want to, they have better things to do than to find out how their technology works, they just want it to work.
> Just coz they fail somewhere does not mean they are bad.
But looking at the bigger picture is not especially favorable to Google et al:
Back in the 1980s, technology was advancing at a dizzying pace, and the world seemed on its way to peace, freedom, and brotherly love.
Today the world has a dis/misinformation crisis, and authoritarianism is rising.
Even if none of that is the fault of Google and social media, it casts doubt on the benefit of today's internet. How great can it be, given the state the world?
I think you may be missing the forest for the trees, no offense intended.
The world is still on its way to peace, freedom and love.
What has happened is that the new communication paradigm surfaced truths that there were before but not acknowledged. Violence against blacks didn't start with Rodney King and didn't end with Jacob Blake. There were there before, and they got pushed into the spotlight exactly by the advancing technology of the Internet: videocameras, cell phones, search, video distribution, forums, etc.
We are in the midst of the most important revolution of humankind - the knowledge revolution. Like the agricultural and industrial revolutions before, it's going to turn up the society on its head, and it won't be pretty. But the society that follows will be way better that the one we have now.
That is an attractive theory, which I also held for a long time. Sadly, as I see it, the world is not playing ball. There comes a point where you have to face the world as it is, not as it is supposed to be.
I still think technology has equal potential for good, as it does for bad. I hope our industry will adapt, to tilt the balance back to the former.
I'll leave it at that. I wrote and deleted several longer replies to your comment, but they all wound up sounding even more condescending :)
Some would argue that Google wants to be seen as magic driven, or at least AI driven (which, to most, is the same as magic).
> Google, wikipedia, even facebook, twitter and reddit have been a plus to modern human thinking.
These organizations have been hugely beneficial for finding or conveying information, which is different from thinking. Of the five, only the Wikipedia can claim to have reasonable (albeit, not always reliable) systems for vetting information in place. The others hide behind automation while concealing how the automation works.
I'm not going to claim the world is worse off for them, nor am I going to claim it's better. For the most part, it is a trade-off. While organizing the world's information is important, assessing it's value is also important. That's difficult to do when the priority is to do so at large scales and not all information is provided in good faith.
I was reading some articles from when the internet was in its early days, and they were so full of hope and excitement. They were looking forward to how well everyone could be informed. There was one anecdote where someone had a less rosy view, and he worried that the access to a vast amount of information would lead to people becoming very polarized. This really struck me because I often feel like I can look something up and find 10 good articles on both sides that will really vindicate either view. I think in some ways it’s human nature to go with the view you prefer, and then if you find some articles, you can really trick yourself into feeling correct or very certain about something, despite the fact the information you found might be false. This is something I struggle with a lot, and I have troubles figuring out if a source is good. Your comment about assessing the value of information and information not being provided in good faith struck a chord.
I can understand the author's frustrations. Things like this could cause real world issues because people put too much faith in Google giving them the correct answer.
I think it is more the fault of individuals, and to an extent the institutions teaching those individuals which have a responsibility to teach about online credibility in our time. I.e. don't just copy information from Google - click the link to verify the source is legitimate and look for additional confirmations of the thing you want to report. Of course, if one "legitimate" writer or website gets something wrong, it exacerbates the problem for everyone down the line.
Maybe Google should have a warning somewhere that there information has not been vetted for accuracy?
The problem is that without strong evidence you should assume that all information you read can't be trusted. This seems to be the root cause of all of the election meddling, fake news and similar social issues that are "popular" these days. The only real solution is to teach critical thinking. However teaching critical thinking to the masses is a very hard problem.
So instead of funding schools we just spend money passing laws that verge on censorship.
Yeah, exactly. There was something I was reading/watching the other day that was advising that you not trust information unless it comes from a credible/legitimate source. But isn't that the problem? I mean, a large percentage of the US thinks that Fox news is a credible source (including our President...). People think they're doing research by watching videos on YouTube.
I don't really know how you fix this either. It seems to me that it's not whether you're ABLE to think critically that's the problem, it's whether you WANT to. It feels like a large portion of our population just doesn't want to put in the effort.
Exactly. But also remember that watching YouTube videos can be good research. The medium isn't important, but you need to be careful that the content is coming from a reputable origin and cross-reference with independent sources. Typing the fact that you want to be true into the search box and watching the first 3 videos is not good research.
Your argument collapses if one notices that Google Search used to be a lot more accurate in the first 10-15 years of its operation. One could say they were actually trying to organize information back then.
The damage that has been done in the last 10 years is hard to miss. Search accuracy went down the toilet as did ranking of results, they started rewriting queries en masse and also censoring.
I hope a competitor arises that steals their lunch. They're so bad these days that it can't be very hard to achieve.
Google, wikipedia, even facebook, twitter and reddit have been a plus to modern human thinking.
Just coz they fail somewhere doesnot mean they are bad.
People dont remember how much things sucked before them. Also computer vision, AI are new things.
""And your mission was to organise the world’s information. How’s that working out for you so far?""
It working out so well. Internet is just 40 year old and we are here for fu*k sake.
Some people have 0 bigger picture scene.