Notes on a Criminal Conspiracy: Google's Enshittification Memos
October 3, 2023 9:01 AM Subscribe
Cory Doctorow writes:
"Right now, Google's on trial for its sins against antitrust law. To secure a win, the prosecutors at the DoJ Antitrust Division are going to have to prove what was going on in Google execs' minds when the took the actions that led to the company's dominance. They're going to have to show that the company deliberately undertook to harm its users and customers. Of course, it helps that Google put it all in writing."
"Time and again, Big Tech tells on itself. Think of FTX's main conspirators all hanging out in a group chat called "Wirefraud." Amazon naming its program targeting weak, small publishers the "Gazelle Project" ("approach these small publishers the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle”). Think of Zuck emailing his CFO in the middle of the night to defend his outsized offer to buy Instagram on the basis that users like Insta better and Facebook couldn't compete with them on quality."
"It's like every Big Tech schemer has a folder on their desktop called 'Mens Rea' filled with files like 'Copy_of_Premeditated_Murder.docx'"
"Time and again, Big Tech tells on itself. Think of FTX's main conspirators all hanging out in a group chat called "Wirefraud." Amazon naming its program targeting weak, small publishers the "Gazelle Project" ("approach these small publishers the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle”). Think of Zuck emailing his CFO in the middle of the night to defend his outsized offer to buy Instagram on the basis that users like Insta better and Facebook couldn't compete with them on quality."
"It's like every Big Tech schemer has a folder on their desktop called 'Mens Rea' filled with files like 'Copy_of_Premeditated_Murder.docx'"
Just read this myself. So, they replace the words I enter into search, with a "semantically similar" search term that results in more ads. Fantastic.
Another great place to follow this trial is Big Tech on Trial
posted by rebent at 9:08 AM on October 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
Another great place to follow this trial is Big Tech on Trial
posted by rebent at 9:08 AM on October 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
If you've felt that the internet the internet is just somehow worse these days but can't really articulate how or how this came to be, this is an excellent and well-edited piece to read.
It's not just you. You're not being a curmudgeon. It really is getting worse and getting worse faster: The enshittification curve is exponential.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:12 AM on October 3, 2023 [25 favorites]
It's not just you. You're not being a curmudgeon. It really is getting worse and getting worse faster: The enshittification curve is exponential.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:12 AM on October 3, 2023 [25 favorites]
80% of my job is research and Google has been nearly useless as a research tool for at least 2 years at this point, maybe longer. It happened so slowly that I didn't notice at first, but these days it's glaringly obvious. Even Bing consistently returns better, more useable results. What a dogshit company.
posted by saladin at 9:24 AM on October 3, 2023 [46 favorites]
posted by saladin at 9:24 AM on October 3, 2023 [46 favorites]
"Enshittification" is itself a form of enshittification because we already had the term "crappification" but now we've got a proprietory version of it instead.
posted by dng at 9:29 AM on October 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by dng at 9:29 AM on October 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
Doctorow's on point with describing tech processes like enshittification, but presents some of his ideas with such a sense of being aghast at what he's describing that it's hard to hear through the hyperbole. I think it was two years ago that Doctorow predicted that Uber's bankruptcy was imminent, for example; sometimes I'm not entirely sure whether his takes or predictions are reliable, even when he's generally right.
posted by entropone at 9:42 AM on October 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by entropone at 9:42 AM on October 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
The Freedom of the Press Foundation wrote a blog post last Wednesday about the ridiculous levels of secrecy Judge Mehta (an Obama appointee) has allowed during the trial:
But a judge’s job isn’t to simply accept a party’s claim that public access to a trial would cause the sky to fall. Imagine, for example, that courts had acceded to tobacco companies’ demands to keep court records proving the dangers of smoking under seal. Instead, judges should skeptically examine parties’ justifications for secrecy (which are often completely illegitimate) and only permit sealing if the presumptive right of access to court proceedings is overcome by a compelling reason. By deferring to the companies’ claims of financial harms, Mehta has abdicated his role as the protector of the public’s interest in open court proceedings.
WSJ article the next day had the judge blaming prosecutors for not being active enough in challenging the corporations' claims of the need for secrecy [gift link] in testimony like this:
One key witness—Apple executive John Giannandrea, who headed Google’s search business until 2018—testified for just 10 minutes in open court before moving to a closed session that lasted four hours.
But Mehta has been a major source of the problem, not only bending backwards on broad corporate claims of the need for confidentiality, but also scolding prosecutors for making documents public after they're entered into evidence (and thus public), then reversing himself when it was made clear that was perfectly legal and normal practice. All of this should be public, including audio recordings of the trial. That we have to fight to see it is absurd, as is the fact that Megan Gray, who's in the courtroom and was quoted in Doctorow's piece, had to deal with crap like this:
During one employee’s testimony, a key exhibit momentarily flashed on a projector. In the mostly closed trial, spectators like myself have only a few seconds to scribble down the contents of exhibits shown during public questioning.
posted by mediareport at 9:43 AM on October 3, 2023 [14 favorites]
But a judge’s job isn’t to simply accept a party’s claim that public access to a trial would cause the sky to fall. Imagine, for example, that courts had acceded to tobacco companies’ demands to keep court records proving the dangers of smoking under seal. Instead, judges should skeptically examine parties’ justifications for secrecy (which are often completely illegitimate) and only permit sealing if the presumptive right of access to court proceedings is overcome by a compelling reason. By deferring to the companies’ claims of financial harms, Mehta has abdicated his role as the protector of the public’s interest in open court proceedings.
WSJ article the next day had the judge blaming prosecutors for not being active enough in challenging the corporations' claims of the need for secrecy [gift link] in testimony like this:
One key witness—Apple executive John Giannandrea, who headed Google’s search business until 2018—testified for just 10 minutes in open court before moving to a closed session that lasted four hours.
But Mehta has been a major source of the problem, not only bending backwards on broad corporate claims of the need for confidentiality, but also scolding prosecutors for making documents public after they're entered into evidence (and thus public), then reversing himself when it was made clear that was perfectly legal and normal practice. All of this should be public, including audio recordings of the trial. That we have to fight to see it is absurd, as is the fact that Megan Gray, who's in the courtroom and was quoted in Doctorow's piece, had to deal with crap like this:
During one employee’s testimony, a key exhibit momentarily flashed on a projector. In the mostly closed trial, spectators like myself have only a few seconds to scribble down the contents of exhibits shown during public questioning.
posted by mediareport at 9:43 AM on October 3, 2023 [14 favorites]
We need to bring back "craptacular"
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:43 AM on October 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:43 AM on October 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
I actually have no clue what Cory means when he says "enshittification" these days. It seems to have broadened to encompass anything he doesn't like.
There's probably a good phrase that could be coined to describe a certain kind of counterproductive profit-seeking behavior, and it's kind of a shame that Cory's hypocritical hyperbole gets in the way of itself, and has clouded this particular metaphor.
posted by schmod at 9:51 AM on October 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
There's probably a good phrase that could be coined to describe a certain kind of counterproductive profit-seeking behavior, and it's kind of a shame that Cory's hypocritical hyperbole gets in the way of itself, and has clouded this particular metaphor.
posted by schmod at 9:51 AM on October 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
So does DuckDuckGo provide better quality search results or just privacy protection?
posted by gottabefunky at 9:54 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 9:54 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
I'm confused, I get the hyperbole (and personally love it - like, good, someone SHOULD be visibly furious about this stuff). But what exactly is Doctorow "hypocritical" about and what exactly is "getting in the way of itself"
posted by windbox at 9:56 AM on October 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by windbox at 9:56 AM on October 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
Doctorow's on point with describing tech processes like enshittification, but presents some of his ideas with such a sense of being aghast at what he's describing that it's hard to hear through the hyperbole.
Yes, the spin he puts on stuff is so strong, you really have to fact-check everything he writes. I've been burned in the past when I shared his articles, only to discover they were full of holes and exaggerations.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:56 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yes, the spin he puts on stuff is so strong, you really have to fact-check everything he writes. I've been burned in the past when I shared his articles, only to discover they were full of holes and exaggerations.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:56 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
This one seems pretty accurate.
posted by mediareport at 9:58 AM on October 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 9:58 AM on October 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
On the Google case itself... I dunno, man. It's a weird one.
The case is specifically about Google's payments to browser vendors to be the default search engine. It's a fairly standard product-placement arrangement, and I can't even begin to think about what the broader implications would be for a ruling against Google. (This might, in fact, be good for consumers, but it seems like it could be a very big wrench to throw into the economy, and would upend a lot of precedent)
It's a very weird angle for the prosecution to have chosen, that this is apparently the most egregious example of anticompetitive behavior from Google.
Given the basis of the case, I'm also very confused about why we're hearing so much testimony about other stuff. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm kinda surprised that it was allowable for the prosecution to essentially go on such a broad fishing-expedition. (Again, this isn't necessarily bad, but it sure is weird that it was allowable, when corporations are usually untouchable in this regard. Why the single exception here?)
There's also one tragic irony in the case: a loss for Google in the case will almost certainly kill Mozilla.
Anyway, it's been really weird and difficult to follow this case, because nobody (judge included) seems to be particularly clear on what it's even about. In all likelihood it's going to be a massy ruling that gets held up in appeals for a decade.
posted by schmod at 10:04 AM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
The case is specifically about Google's payments to browser vendors to be the default search engine. It's a fairly standard product-placement arrangement, and I can't even begin to think about what the broader implications would be for a ruling against Google. (This might, in fact, be good for consumers, but it seems like it could be a very big wrench to throw into the economy, and would upend a lot of precedent)
It's a very weird angle for the prosecution to have chosen, that this is apparently the most egregious example of anticompetitive behavior from Google.
Given the basis of the case, I'm also very confused about why we're hearing so much testimony about other stuff. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm kinda surprised that it was allowable for the prosecution to essentially go on such a broad fishing-expedition. (Again, this isn't necessarily bad, but it sure is weird that it was allowable, when corporations are usually untouchable in this regard. Why the single exception here?)
There's also one tragic irony in the case: a loss for Google in the case will almost certainly kill Mozilla.
Anyway, it's been really weird and difficult to follow this case, because nobody (judge included) seems to be particularly clear on what it's even about. In all likelihood it's going to be a massy ruling that gets held up in appeals for a decade.
posted by schmod at 10:04 AM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
But what exactly is Doctorow "hypocritical" about and what exactly is "getting in the way of itself"
I should have been more clear here.
Doctorow's hyperbole undermines and gets in the way of the (good) core point that he's trying to make. He's got a reputation for doing stuff like this.
Doctorow is hypocritical when he makes these proclamations – he is absolutely not a neutral party in all this. His advocacy almost certainly shaped the way that the modern Internet economy developed and evolved. He was a very influential voice on the early web. He told us to give our work away for free, and to refuse to pay for stuff.
His most notable work on the early web (Boing Boing) suffered from a long, painful, and embarrassing decline, as the site was nakedly monetized and turned into a link-farm and sewer of sponsored content. He literally ran one of the internet's first enshittified websites!
posted by schmod at 10:11 AM on October 3, 2023 [41 favorites]
I should have been more clear here.
Doctorow's hyperbole undermines and gets in the way of the (good) core point that he's trying to make. He's got a reputation for doing stuff like this.
Doctorow is hypocritical when he makes these proclamations – he is absolutely not a neutral party in all this. His advocacy almost certainly shaped the way that the modern Internet economy developed and evolved. He was a very influential voice on the early web. He told us to give our work away for free, and to refuse to pay for stuff.
His most notable work on the early web (Boing Boing) suffered from a long, painful, and embarrassing decline, as the site was nakedly monetized and turned into a link-farm and sewer of sponsored content. He literally ran one of the internet's first enshittified websites!
posted by schmod at 10:11 AM on October 3, 2023 [41 favorites]
a loss for Google in the case will almost certainly kill Mozilla.
How so? Not disputing, I just don't understand.
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:14 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
How so? Not disputing, I just don't understand.
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:14 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
gottabefunky: I actually have no clue what Cory means when he says "enshittification" these days. It seems to have broadened to encompass anything he doesn't like.
He does break it down in the third quarter of the FPP link: use surplus to attract customers, then lock them in to use your service as you degrade functionality. Here that is making search worse to sell adverts and to funnel web users to their advertiser's shops rather than pointing users to the information they seek.
I thought it was cogent and reasonably argued, in focus like the rest of Doctorow's writing this year.
posted by k3ninho at 10:15 AM on October 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
He does break it down in the third quarter of the FPP link: use surplus to attract customers, then lock them in to use your service as you degrade functionality. Here that is making search worse to sell adverts and to funnel web users to their advertiser's shops rather than pointing users to the information they seek.
I thought it was cogent and reasonably argued, in focus like the rest of Doctorow's writing this year.
posted by k3ninho at 10:15 AM on October 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a big search engine stamping on a human face – for ever.
We need to bring back "craptacular"
Oh wait... it left? I missed that memo. Oh, wow! It's like deja vu all over again!
So does DuckDuckGo provide better quality search results or just privacy protection?
You get the better search results when you open Dogpile in it.
posted by y2karl at 10:20 AM on October 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
We need to bring back "craptacular"
Oh wait... it left? I missed that memo. Oh, wow! It's like deja vu all over again!
So does DuckDuckGo provide better quality search results or just privacy protection?
You get the better search results when you open Dogpile in it.
posted by y2karl at 10:20 AM on October 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's key to remember that Doctorow's core skill is promoting himself. Everything else is a distant second place.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:22 AM on October 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:22 AM on October 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
How so? Not disputing, I just don't understand.
Mozilla has a deal with Google to make Google the default search engine in Firefox. This accounts for 80+ percent of Mozilla’s income.
I recall that the last time this deal was up for renegotiation (2020?) people were talking like it was no longer a sure thing anyway because Firefox is such a small part of the market but they did renew it once more. There is a certain irony that on one hand Google supports Mozilla as part of its search monopoly, and on the other hand as a measure to avoid the appearance of a browser monopoly.
posted by atoxyl at 10:27 AM on October 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
Mozilla has a deal with Google to make Google the default search engine in Firefox. This accounts for 80+ percent of Mozilla’s income.
I recall that the last time this deal was up for renegotiation (2020?) people were talking like it was no longer a sure thing anyway because Firefox is such a small part of the market but they did renew it once more. There is a certain irony that on one hand Google supports Mozilla as part of its search monopoly, and on the other hand as a measure to avoid the appearance of a browser monopoly.
posted by atoxyl at 10:27 AM on October 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
"Enshittification" is itself a form of enshittification because we already had the term "crappification" but now we've got a proprietory version of it instead.
Much prefer "turdified" and "turdification".
I would say it rolls off the tongue better, but, you know, eww.
posted by Ayn Marx at 10:33 AM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Much prefer "turdified" and "turdification".
I would say it rolls off the tongue better, but, you know, eww.
posted by Ayn Marx at 10:33 AM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
This accounts for 80+ percent of Mozilla’s income.
Ah, thanks
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:35 AM on October 3, 2023
Ah, thanks
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:35 AM on October 3, 2023
I believe Mozilla did briefly partner with Yahoo instead, so Google might not be their last option, especially in a world where the search market actually opened up a little.
posted by atoxyl at 10:41 AM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 10:41 AM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
So does DuckDuckGo provide better quality search results or just privacy protection?
Just privacy protection, as far as I can tell. It's my default search engine because it's "not google" but I'm told that it's best not use it to search for trans information because it will give you anti-trans information. I'm sure there are other search categories like that for duckduckgo but I don't know what they are. I treat search engines like unrealiable narrators.
Marginalia is my favorite search engine but it only works for some types of searches.
posted by aniola at 10:49 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
Just privacy protection, as far as I can tell. It's my default search engine because it's "not google" but I'm told that it's best not use it to search for trans information because it will give you anti-trans information. I'm sure there are other search categories like that for duckduckgo but I don't know what they are. I treat search engines like unrealiable narrators.
Marginalia is my favorite search engine but it only works for some types of searches.
posted by aniola at 10:49 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
I've long had an "enshittified" opinion of Doctorow, mainly when Boing Boing undergoing deep enshittification and he and Xeni could be seen on CNN talking about how great their Internet Opinions are. He's become a bit more palatable of late, if maybe even a bit more mature.
posted by slogger at 10:49 AM on October 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by slogger at 10:49 AM on October 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm just glad to see Cory has come around to spelling "enshittification" with two Ts.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:02 AM on October 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:02 AM on October 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
There is a certain irony that on one hand Google supports Mozilla as part of its search monopoly, and on the other hand as a measure to avoid the appearance of a browser monopoly.
Yeah, it's a nice thing for Google to be able to point to to say "see? we're not monopolistic at all, look how nice we are to our competitor!" Tough to know what will happen in the future, but wouldn't a loss for Google in this trial mean they'd be more likely to need that kind of fig leaf, not less?
posted by mediareport at 11:07 AM on October 3, 2023
Yeah, it's a nice thing for Google to be able to point to to say "see? we're not monopolistic at all, look how nice we are to our competitor!" Tough to know what will happen in the future, but wouldn't a loss for Google in this trial mean they'd be more likely to need that kind of fig leaf, not less?
posted by mediareport at 11:07 AM on October 3, 2023
So does DuckDuckGo provide better quality search results or just privacy protection?
Yeah, IME neither DuckDuckGo nor Kagi (paid subscription based search) provide significantly better regular search results than Google, though they don't make you skip over the asinine "people also ask" suggestions* and so on. Which suggests to me that the problem with the core search results is not that Google is somehow deliberately ruining them, just that we live in an increasingly search-resistant ecosystem, as there's now a large industry around gaming search engines to trick people into going to their not-the-best-result-by-any-reasonable-metric pages.
* Though I do sometimes find these hilarious. I have seen it offer up "Is Asteroid City based on a true story?", "What do bananas taste like?", and "Is synth-pop a goth?"
posted by aubilenon at 11:13 AM on October 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Yeah, IME neither DuckDuckGo nor Kagi (paid subscription based search) provide significantly better regular search results than Google, though they don't make you skip over the asinine "people also ask" suggestions* and so on. Which suggests to me that the problem with the core search results is not that Google is somehow deliberately ruining them, just that we live in an increasingly search-resistant ecosystem, as there's now a large industry around gaming search engines to trick people into going to their not-the-best-result-by-any-reasonable-metric pages.
* Though I do sometimes find these hilarious. I have seen it offer up "Is Asteroid City based on a true story?", "What do bananas taste like?", and "Is synth-pop a goth?"
posted by aubilenon at 11:13 AM on October 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
You do have to appreciate the irony that in the original research paper where Page and Brin presented the algorithm used to create Google, they made the following observation: "we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers."
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:15 AM on October 3, 2023 [17 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:15 AM on October 3, 2023 [17 favorites]
These companies traffick in all the information regarding:
our attention, our searches, our phone calls, our text messages, our files, our emails, our locations, our wallets, our apps, our meltdowns, our photos, our marriages, our bankruptcies, our aphorism, and our videos
... as a means of production. And then suddenly these same people don't see the value in sharing data as a means of justice.
posted by MonsieurPEB at 11:25 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
our attention, our searches, our phone calls, our text messages, our files, our emails, our locations, our wallets, our apps, our meltdowns, our photos, our marriages, our bankruptcies, our aphorism, and our videos
... as a means of production. And then suddenly these same people don't see the value in sharing data as a means of justice.
posted by MonsieurPEB at 11:25 AM on October 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
"Hypocrite" is the term detractors fling when they don't have anything real to criticize. (And I don't even think the term applies to Doctorow.)
If a thief says stealing is bad, they're a hypocrite.
But does that mean they are wrong about stealing?
posted by AlSweigart at 11:26 AM on October 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
If a thief says stealing is bad, they're a hypocrite.
But does that mean they are wrong about stealing?
posted by AlSweigart at 11:26 AM on October 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
Can we please not make this thread yet another MeFi referendum on Doctorow, but instead focus on the issues in the article?
posted by mediareport at 11:34 AM on October 3, 2023 [30 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 11:34 AM on October 3, 2023 [30 favorites]
My son is eight, he is completely unable to parse a page of google search results, just doesn’t have the training to filter out the noise for the worthwhile links, while he understood DuckDuckGo’s results just fine. I have a feeling google will be dominant until it suddenly isn’t, because it’s getting sooooo bad at the one thing its users want.
posted by Kattullus at 11:42 AM on October 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 11:42 AM on October 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
The only thing that makes Google search usable for me (much like the internet at large) is ad-blocking. And even that doesn't get rid of the "other questions" someone mentioned above, which, when I occasionally look through them, prove to be results that have nothing to do with the question I was researching/keywords I was using.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 11:48 AM on October 3, 2023
posted by gentlyepigrams at 11:48 AM on October 3, 2023
Google search has gotten so craptacular now that I often use Yahoo instead because even it is less full of junk links. I hadn't used Yahoo since I gave up on it back when Alta Vista was the best and hottest search engine.
posted by fimbulvetr at 11:50 AM on October 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by fimbulvetr at 11:50 AM on October 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Just read this myself. So, they replace the words I enter into search, with a "semantically similar" search term that results in more ads. Fantastic.
I'm not sure I trust that statement. The author uses lots of weasel words and suppositions, so it doesn't come off as particularly trustworthy nor definite, not withstanding that she actively worked for a competitor. Do they add "semantically similar" words to trigger specific sponsored (ads, in their own language) links? Most assuredly. For actual search results across the board? I'm not sure I believe that.
Also, using a search like "children's clothing" that is at best indetermined if it's meant to be a shopping-specific search or not is extremely weasely. If you do a more specific search, like for example 'children's clothing trends' or 'history of children's clothing', you get more appropriate links. The ads and links also change - search it up twice in a row. So that means that multiple vendors are paying the same rates for 'insertion' into semantic searches, which has to dilute the value for the ad, even if it increases revenue for google. I assume their ad teams realize this already.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:04 PM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure I trust that statement. The author uses lots of weasel words and suppositions, so it doesn't come off as particularly trustworthy nor definite, not withstanding that she actively worked for a competitor. Do they add "semantically similar" words to trigger specific sponsored (ads, in their own language) links? Most assuredly. For actual search results across the board? I'm not sure I believe that.
Also, using a search like "children's clothing" that is at best indetermined if it's meant to be a shopping-specific search or not is extremely weasely. If you do a more specific search, like for example 'children's clothing trends' or 'history of children's clothing', you get more appropriate links. The ads and links also change - search it up twice in a row. So that means that multiple vendors are paying the same rates for 'insertion' into semantic searches, which has to dilute the value for the ad, even if it increases revenue for google. I assume their ad teams realize this already.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:04 PM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
It's great to see here that the correct response to the massively and deliberately shit actions of internet companies is to complain about Cory Doctorow for not being good enough or something.
Sure. He does hyperbole. And has opinions. That's not to everyone's taste, I guess. And that personal style preference is the most important takeaway by miles.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 12:09 PM on October 3, 2023 [24 favorites]
Sure. He does hyperbole. And has opinions. That's not to everyone's taste, I guess. And that personal style preference is the most important takeaway by miles.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 12:09 PM on October 3, 2023 [24 favorites]
– then, the company shoves crap into the page from within, while an uncountable number of people stuff crap into the page from without.
– That's a heck of a search engine, what do you call it?
– The Aristocrats!
posted by zippy at 12:14 PM on October 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
– That's a heck of a search engine, what do you call it?
– The Aristocrats!
posted by zippy at 12:14 PM on October 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
* Though I do sometimes find these hilarious. I have seen it offer up "Is Asteroid City based on a true story?", "What do bananas taste like?", and "Is synth-pop a goth?"
How about "Do Goats Really Eat Tin Cans?"
posted by y2karl at 12:36 PM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
How about "Do Goats Really Eat Tin Cans?"
posted by y2karl at 12:36 PM on October 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
...with such a sense of being aghast at what he's describing that it's hard to hear through the hyperbole.
...and it's kind of a shame that Cory's hypocritical hyperbole gets in the way of itself
2013: "The NSA is spying on our phone calls and internet usage."
2016: "Trump could become President."
2020: "We need to wear masks and shut down large parts of our economic and social life or else hundreds of thousands of Americans could die."
2021: "A fascist coup could take over America and undo the election."
2022: "The Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe v Wade."
2023: "Trump could become President... again."
These statements I've made over the past decade aren't hyperbole; they're literally true and utterly banal. Cory Doctorow's statements in this article (backed up by links in the article itself! You just have to click and read them! THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT HOW THEY WRITE ALL THIS STUFF DOWN.) are not hyperbole at all.
We've just normalized the enshittification process.
posted by AlSweigart at 1:08 PM on October 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
...and it's kind of a shame that Cory's hypocritical hyperbole gets in the way of itself
2013: "The NSA is spying on our phone calls and internet usage."
2016: "Trump could become President."
2020: "We need to wear masks and shut down large parts of our economic and social life or else hundreds of thousands of Americans could die."
2021: "A fascist coup could take over America and undo the election."
2022: "The Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe v Wade."
2023: "Trump could become President... again."
These statements I've made over the past decade aren't hyperbole; they're literally true and utterly banal. Cory Doctorow's statements in this article (backed up by links in the article itself! You just have to click and read them! THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT HOW THEY WRITE ALL THIS STUFF DOWN.) are not hyperbole at all.
We've just normalized the enshittification process.
posted by AlSweigart at 1:08 PM on October 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
Mod note: Let's try to avoid turning this thread into another referendum on Cory Doctorow, and address the link in the post instead.
posted by loup (staff) at 1:19 PM on October 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 1:19 PM on October 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
The_Vegetables: You're missing the key point. While G has been providing users with worse and worse search results (ignoring operators, pushing real results so far down the page no one sees them, etc etc), the significance of their adding the 'semantically similar' terms is that it's screwing their customers.
The whole business case for Adwords has always been 'pay us to show your ads to people who are looking for these specific keywords in particular.' The exact words people type in the query are (in theory) an indicator of their interest. It's the whole basis of their 'targeting' story. (ignoring all the tracking and data harvesting, which is orthogonal to this discussion).
What this news means is paying customers (advertisers) have been paying a premium for ads shown to a highly interested audience, and instead have been charged the premium for ads displayed to any random search that is in the same general ballpark.
posted by cfraenkel at 2:06 PM on October 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
The whole business case for Adwords has always been 'pay us to show your ads to people who are looking for these specific keywords in particular.' The exact words people type in the query are (in theory) an indicator of their interest. It's the whole basis of their 'targeting' story. (ignoring all the tracking and data harvesting, which is orthogonal to this discussion).
What this news means is paying customers (advertisers) have been paying a premium for ads shown to a highly interested audience, and instead have been charged the premium for ads displayed to any random search that is in the same general ballpark.
posted by cfraenkel at 2:06 PM on October 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
It's a fairly standard product-placement arrangement, and I can't even begin to think about what the broader implications would be for a ruling against Google.
Behavior that might be permissible in a small market player may be illegal in the context of market dominance. That's the foundation of antitrust law. Not trying to be mean, because antitrust law is a gnarly mess even for lawyers, but you're really not going to understand the case at all until you understand that.
posted by praemunire at 3:32 PM on October 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Behavior that might be permissible in a small market player may be illegal in the context of market dominance. That's the foundation of antitrust law. Not trying to be mean, because antitrust law is a gnarly mess even for lawyers, but you're really not going to understand the case at all until you understand that.
posted by praemunire at 3:32 PM on October 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
another referendum on Cory Doctorow could work as a band name, maybe.
posted by y2karl at 5:39 PM on October 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 5:39 PM on October 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
So does DuckDuckGo provide better quality search results or just privacy protection?
I use DuckDuckGo for most searches, and it doesn't provide *worse* results. I still use Google for Google Books/Scholar and searching on some specific subjects, but otherwise I don't miss it.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
I use DuckDuckGo for most searches, and it doesn't provide *worse* results. I still use Google for Google Books/Scholar and searching on some specific subjects, but otherwise I don't miss it.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
Enshittification" is itself a form of enshittification because we already had the term capitalism.
Fixed that for you! Seriously though, we do ourselves a disservice by jumping on Mr. Doctrow's cute coinage, when we have centuries of prior usage of a perfectly cromulent word. Why obfuscate with a coy euphemistic neologism when the shitty cause is right there.
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:08 PM on October 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Fixed that for you! Seriously though, we do ourselves a disservice by jumping on Mr. Doctrow's cute coinage, when we have centuries of prior usage of a perfectly cromulent word. Why obfuscate with a coy euphemistic neologism when the shitty cause is right there.
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:08 PM on October 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Enshittification" is itself a form of enshittification because we already had the term capitalism.
Crapitalism?
posted by aubilenon at 8:11 PM on October 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
Crapitalism?
posted by aubilenon at 8:11 PM on October 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
Duckduckgo is my default but Google does local a lot better. I'd take the Google of 15 years ago in a heartbeat though.
Also, don't go on the internet without an ad blocker.
posted by deadwax at 9:04 PM on October 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
Also, don't go on the internet without an ad blocker.
posted by deadwax at 9:04 PM on October 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
OK, I just enabled Duck Duck Go as my default search engine. What can I, as the user, expect that's different? Not the back end, not taking/selling my info, not tracking... I'm just wondering what difference it will make to an average guy like myself? Is there any short encapsulation of the difference? Genuinely curious.
posted by SoberHighland at 6:13 AM on October 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by SoberHighland at 6:13 AM on October 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
What this news means is paying customers (advertisers) have been paying a premium for ads shown to a highly interested audience, and instead have been charged the premium for ads displayed to any random search that is in the same general ballpark.
No, I get that is a potential outcome, but I as a consumer don't care. That's between Google and it's advertisers, and I implied but didn't say that advertisers most assuredly already knew about this - at least the big ones did.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:21 AM on October 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
No, I get that is a potential outcome, but I as a consumer don't care. That's between Google and it's advertisers, and I implied but didn't say that advertisers most assuredly already knew about this - at least the big ones did.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:21 AM on October 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
All search engines are crappy now. SEO - Search engine optimization have made them so. Any website can tag themself with search terms that are unrelated to what is on their site. As long as search engines throw up results derived from tags instead of from content actually visible on the site, search results will be loaded with nonsense. We could triple the traffic on MetaFilter if we just add "#MILF, #anal, #catgifs, #Trumpisthesecondcoming, #cryptocurrencysecrets"
A good way to test a search engine is to search for an obscure expert's page, which you already have bookmarked. About six years ago Google became unusable to me, because the obscure expert's core-dump wealth of information page would never appear in their search ranks, only useless sites that had scraped the same endlessly repeated paragraph of information from Wikipedia.
Google is notable that, if you include your obscure experts name as one of your search terms, it will exclude the term as clearly not relevant since all those other information-less commercial sites have more traffic. Google search will send you to a completely irrelevant high traffic site every time.
The reason I dumped Google with extreme prejudice is because I was working for a small organization which had a web page, and discovered that Google was blocking our own web page, while throwing up a web page they had created for us. The only web page that could be found by searching for us on Google contained severely inaccurate information, such as wrong telephone number and wrong location. And the only way to get Google to correct their fake website was to buy it from them and enter into a contract where we paid for a subscription in order to have access to updating or correcting the info.
It wasn't so much my being offended by this kind of extortion, but the realization that every search I was doing on Google was also being diverted to spurious sites. I would only get a correct hit using Google if I was looking for a page that had high traffic because it had paid Google to get high traffic. But sites like that are usually very short on content, as well as being so easy to find that any fifth rate badly funded search engine can find them, if I actually do want to visit them.
Duck Duck Go is still kinda usable, but at the same time the websites that have managed to divert all the traffic to them normally rank higher than useful ones. To search effectively you have come up up with a string of search terms, some of which will not be found on the more useless sites. It ain't great, but it also ain't useless. I haven't been able to find anything I want using Google's search engine for years because they delete terms that don't lead to the sites that fund them. It's been obvious that they do this for at least half a decade.
I am frequently urged to make some useless piece of junk my default browser or my search engine of choice, where I am required to tick something in order to opt out, rather than tick to opt in. I will say that I use Firefox and if it ever did offer me Google for a default search engine, in only did so once when I first chose it as my default browser several seconds before I set Duck Duck Go as my default search engine. So I am not too disgusted by hearing that Firefox gets funding by offering Google for a search engine. My virus protection and MicroSoft itself both keep trying to override my wishes, and force a change to my browser and/or search engine, which means they broke through my trust thermocline long ago. They are as credible as an unsolicited caller on my land line. If they recommend something I make a mental note to never, ever try that product as it requires fraud or coercion to get anyone to use it...
Yet Google still remains invaluable to me. Google Street View is my go to for certain types of research. Unfortunately it is now speckled with advertisements so when you stroll down a virtual street you sometimes can't see what you are looking for due to the markers telling you there are businesses there. And of course even their design for that is crap. Whoever paid them first gets to hog the location. If you are looking for a business that has a marker it is apt to be on the wrong block entirely, because some other businesses on the same block got there first and the business who arrived later couldn't place it any closer. Even more amusingly, in an area with high turn over, you may be unable to see anything for markers which represent business that are now closed and weren't in that block anyway...
All the same strolling around some city I will never visit using Google Streetview is a nice way to get out of the house when I am under quarantine, and helpful if want to describe a street in Bonn, Germany convincingly for something I am writing.
posted by Jane the Brown at 8:33 AM on October 4, 2023 [14 favorites]
A good way to test a search engine is to search for an obscure expert's page, which you already have bookmarked. About six years ago Google became unusable to me, because the obscure expert's core-dump wealth of information page would never appear in their search ranks, only useless sites that had scraped the same endlessly repeated paragraph of information from Wikipedia.
Google is notable that, if you include your obscure experts name as one of your search terms, it will exclude the term as clearly not relevant since all those other information-less commercial sites have more traffic. Google search will send you to a completely irrelevant high traffic site every time.
The reason I dumped Google with extreme prejudice is because I was working for a small organization which had a web page, and discovered that Google was blocking our own web page, while throwing up a web page they had created for us. The only web page that could be found by searching for us on Google contained severely inaccurate information, such as wrong telephone number and wrong location. And the only way to get Google to correct their fake website was to buy it from them and enter into a contract where we paid for a subscription in order to have access to updating or correcting the info.
It wasn't so much my being offended by this kind of extortion, but the realization that every search I was doing on Google was also being diverted to spurious sites. I would only get a correct hit using Google if I was looking for a page that had high traffic because it had paid Google to get high traffic. But sites like that are usually very short on content, as well as being so easy to find that any fifth rate badly funded search engine can find them, if I actually do want to visit them.
Duck Duck Go is still kinda usable, but at the same time the websites that have managed to divert all the traffic to them normally rank higher than useful ones. To search effectively you have come up up with a string of search terms, some of which will not be found on the more useless sites. It ain't great, but it also ain't useless. I haven't been able to find anything I want using Google's search engine for years because they delete terms that don't lead to the sites that fund them. It's been obvious that they do this for at least half a decade.
I am frequently urged to make some useless piece of junk my default browser or my search engine of choice, where I am required to tick something in order to opt out, rather than tick to opt in. I will say that I use Firefox and if it ever did offer me Google for a default search engine, in only did so once when I first chose it as my default browser several seconds before I set Duck Duck Go as my default search engine. So I am not too disgusted by hearing that Firefox gets funding by offering Google for a search engine. My virus protection and MicroSoft itself both keep trying to override my wishes, and force a change to my browser and/or search engine, which means they broke through my trust thermocline long ago. They are as credible as an unsolicited caller on my land line. If they recommend something I make a mental note to never, ever try that product as it requires fraud or coercion to get anyone to use it...
Yet Google still remains invaluable to me. Google Street View is my go to for certain types of research. Unfortunately it is now speckled with advertisements so when you stroll down a virtual street you sometimes can't see what you are looking for due to the markers telling you there are businesses there. And of course even their design for that is crap. Whoever paid them first gets to hog the location. If you are looking for a business that has a marker it is apt to be on the wrong block entirely, because some other businesses on the same block got there first and the business who arrived later couldn't place it any closer. Even more amusingly, in an area with high turn over, you may be unable to see anything for markers which represent business that are now closed and weren't in that block anyway...
All the same strolling around some city I will never visit using Google Streetview is a nice way to get out of the house when I am under quarantine, and helpful if want to describe a street in Bonn, Germany convincingly for something I am writing.
posted by Jane the Brown at 8:33 AM on October 4, 2023 [14 favorites]
DDG requires about the same amount of searchcraft that Alta Vista did lo those many years ago, but you can get results. I haven't used anything else for years.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:16 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:16 AM on October 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Any website can tag themself with search terms that are unrelated to what is on their site.
Any search engine that can effectively ignore this bullshit has my business, I'll even pay for it.
I've spent this week ill unable to do real work and have disappeared down some pretty deep internet reading rabbit holes, partly blogs with amazing information that look like they were "designed" in 1997. They simply don't turn up in search engines anymore, SEO'd shit that barely ressembles English is what I'm served instead. I kinda hate this internet.
posted by deadwax at 3:58 PM on October 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
Any search engine that can effectively ignore this bullshit has my business, I'll even pay for it.
I've spent this week ill unable to do real work and have disappeared down some pretty deep internet reading rabbit holes, partly blogs with amazing information that look like they were "designed" in 1997. They simply don't turn up in search engines anymore, SEO'd shit that barely ressembles English is what I'm served instead. I kinda hate this internet.
posted by deadwax at 3:58 PM on October 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
FYI from a comment on a different FPP:
I recently started paying for Kagi as a search engine and really like it so far. Given how fundamental search is to the internet it’s worth 10 bucks a month to me to not be manipulated and have ads constantly shovelled at me.
The general rule is that if something is free and the company is for profit, you’re actually the product and companies have the constant incentive to extract value for their real customers. That includes advertisements, data mining, manipulation, and anything else they can get away with.
posted by Bella Donna at 5:10 AM on October 5, 2023
I recently started paying for Kagi as a search engine and really like it so far. Given how fundamental search is to the internet it’s worth 10 bucks a month to me to not be manipulated and have ads constantly shovelled at me.
The general rule is that if something is free and the company is for profit, you’re actually the product and companies have the constant incentive to extract value for their real customers. That includes advertisements, data mining, manipulation, and anything else they can get away with.
posted by Bella Donna at 5:10 AM on October 5, 2023
OK, I just enabled Duck Duck Go as my default search engine. What can I, as the user, expect that's different?
Duck Duck Go is inferior to Google when you want to cheat at Guess My Word.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:15 AM on October 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Duck Duck Go is inferior to Google when you want to cheat at Guess My Word.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:15 AM on October 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Cory Doctorow's statements in this article (backed up by links in the article itself! You just have to click and read them! THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT HOW THEY WRITE ALL THIS STUFF DOWN.) are not hyperbole at all.
I clicked and read them. They are hyperbole.
Not to focus on Doctorow specifically, but to focus on the accuracy of the account of what Google is supposedly doing -- i.e., the substance of this post -- here is a quote from Doctorow's article:
Here's how that worked: when you ran a query like "children's clothing," Google secretly appended the brand name of a kids' clothing manufacturer to the query. This, in turn, triggered a ton of ads – because rival brands will have bought ads against their competitors' name (like Pepsi buying ads that are shown over queries for Coke).
If you do in fact click on and read -- carefully -- the article by Megan Gray he's using as a source, you'll see that the author's example involving a search for "children's clothing" is nothing more than a hypothetical she constructed, based on her supposition about what Google is doing, based on a slide she glimpsed briefly, and described vaguely in her piece.
This is exactly why I and others in this thread have emphasized the need to read Doctorow -- but really, any author -- carefully. You thought you read a description of a practice that Google has been proven to engage in. In fact, you read a description of a hypothetical presented as fact.
Maybe Google does do the thing that Doctorow and Gray assert it does. Or maybe it experimented with it. Or maybe someone at Google proposed it. It's not possible to judge what the significance of that slide really is, based on the information presented.
If Google is in fact doing the thing, it sounds pretty bad! But we don't know if it is or not.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 6:36 PM on October 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
I clicked and read them. They are hyperbole.
Not to focus on Doctorow specifically, but to focus on the accuracy of the account of what Google is supposedly doing -- i.e., the substance of this post -- here is a quote from Doctorow's article:
Here's how that worked: when you ran a query like "children's clothing," Google secretly appended the brand name of a kids' clothing manufacturer to the query. This, in turn, triggered a ton of ads – because rival brands will have bought ads against their competitors' name (like Pepsi buying ads that are shown over queries for Coke).
If you do in fact click on and read -- carefully -- the article by Megan Gray he's using as a source, you'll see that the author's example involving a search for "children's clothing" is nothing more than a hypothetical she constructed, based on her supposition about what Google is doing, based on a slide she glimpsed briefly, and described vaguely in her piece.
This is exactly why I and others in this thread have emphasized the need to read Doctorow -- but really, any author -- carefully. You thought you read a description of a practice that Google has been proven to engage in. In fact, you read a description of a hypothetical presented as fact.
Maybe Google does do the thing that Doctorow and Gray assert it does. Or maybe it experimented with it. Or maybe someone at Google proposed it. It's not possible to judge what the significance of that slide really is, based on the information presented.
If Google is in fact doing the thing, it sounds pretty bad! But we don't know if it is or not.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 6:36 PM on October 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
re: enshittification
One thing I've seen when running ads on Google is that, if you do your research and find the last sub menu of a sub menu and finally get to the Google Ads backend page that lists out where your ads actually run... you'll find that you're paying the company to display your ads on the worst of the worst websites and ads: sites that plaster ads all over the place; shitty games that make it impossible for users to not click on ads; fake content farms that no real person would ever want to visit; dark patterns all around.
Google then got rid of that page, so you can no longer see where they're running your ads. That's when my company stopped running ads with them.
The thing is, google could easily filter out these scammy sites and apps and SEO farms — it would be good for users and advertisers. But they choose not to.
In a way, the precise mechanics of how they managed to get to this level is interesting for sure but doesn't really matter from a consumer or customer's point of view.
I hope they get broken up. We need more competition in this place.
posted by UN at 10:35 PM on October 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
One thing I've seen when running ads on Google is that, if you do your research and find the last sub menu of a sub menu and finally get to the Google Ads backend page that lists out where your ads actually run... you'll find that you're paying the company to display your ads on the worst of the worst websites and ads: sites that plaster ads all over the place; shitty games that make it impossible for users to not click on ads; fake content farms that no real person would ever want to visit; dark patterns all around.
Google then got rid of that page, so you can no longer see where they're running your ads. That's when my company stopped running ads with them.
The thing is, google could easily filter out these scammy sites and apps and SEO farms — it would be good for users and advertisers. But they choose not to.
In a way, the precise mechanics of how they managed to get to this level is interesting for sure but doesn't really matter from a consumer or customer's point of view.
I hope they get broken up. We need more competition in this place.
posted by UN at 10:35 PM on October 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
It's unfortunate that we don't have a regulatory body capable of breaking up corrosive monopolies like Google.
I am going to use Advanced Profanity Filter to replace "entshittification" with something else. Not because it is profane, but because it is clunky and hyperbolic.
posted by mecran01 at 1:39 PM on October 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
I am going to use Advanced Profanity Filter to replace "entshittification" with something else. Not because it is profane, but because it is clunky and hyperbolic.
posted by mecran01 at 1:39 PM on October 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
This thread is like the MLK white moderates quote put into practice. If only the author had used the proper tone, then the liberals would understand and agree!
What an embarassment.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 8:24 PM on October 6, 2023
What an embarassment.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 8:24 PM on October 6, 2023
The phrase you’re looking for is likely “tone policing”, which overlaps with what MLK decried in his Letter From Birmingham Jail, minus the appropriation of the Black civil rights historical context in defense of this relatively privileged white male author writing about a topic that is not exactly an ongoing regime of oppression and abrogation of the civil and human rights of an entire class of people.
posted by eviemath at 8:52 PM on October 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:52 PM on October 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
If only the author had used the proper tone, then the liberals would understand and agree!
Nope.
More like, "If only the author hadn't presented suppositions as facts."
That isn't tone policing. It's fact checking.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 6:25 PM on October 9, 2023
Nope.
More like, "If only the author hadn't presented suppositions as facts."
That isn't tone policing. It's fact checking.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 6:25 PM on October 9, 2023
Pluralistic: How Google’s trial secrecy lets it control the coverage
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:41 PM on October 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
She [Gray] says that the piece could and should have been amended to reflect these fine-grained corrections, but that in the absence of a full record of the testimony and exhibits, it was impossible for her to prove to her editors that her piece was substantively correct.Makes it difficult to fact check, which is the point.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:41 PM on October 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
That may be exactly what Google is trying to do. Nevertheless: Responsible journalists don't present suppositions (which might be correct!) as proven facts.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:40 AM on October 10, 2023
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:40 AM on October 10, 2023
« Older "It makes me feel some type of way" | Vaccines Fuck Yeah Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ryanrs at 9:08 AM on October 3, 2023 [28 favorites]