The Fall of Google Search: Part 2 - Privacy
The Fall of Google Search: Part 3 - Results Quality
The Fall of Google Search: Part 3 - Results Quality
Alexandra Lustig
Alexandra Lustig
Alexandra Lustig
Apr 9, 2024
Apr 9, 2024
Apr 9, 2024
Now that you’ve read Part 1 of my 3-part series on The Fall of Google Search, you’re well aware of the backlash against Google’s use of advertising.
To recap, Google holds the overwhelming majority of the search engine market with about 92% of all searches on average worldwide. Its nearest competitor, Bing, has only around 3-4% of the global market share.
Lots of searches, and I mean LOTS: approximately 8.5 billion searches each day worldwide, means a lot of eyeballs. A lot of eyeballs in our capitalist society means a lot of potential for revenue. Easiest way to do that? Advertising. And Google made about $237.8 billion in ads in 2023, which was “low” according to their projections.
While Google was busy making money off of our earnest searches for information, the user was getting absolutely bombarded by sponsored posts, Amazon listings, and SERP defaulting to the “Shopping” tab.
In Part 1, we talked about how people are fed up with this ad-forward experience and are increasingly using ad-blocking software and turning to ad-free alternatives.
But here’s the thing: users are also increasingly understanding the implications of all of these ads, and it's not just the fact that they’re reduced to a dollar sign. It’s the fact that all of these ads, and their progressively personalized nature, are farming their data. According to the Privacy and Consumer Trust (2023), 68% of consumers globally are either somewhat or very concerned about their privacy online. We’ve known for quite a while that Google was collecting our data, but in 2012 Google actually changed their privacy policy to allow sharing our data with third-party websites that use AdSense and Analytics (two more of their products contributing to that monopoly I talked about), causing privacy concerns to move to the forefront of users’ brains.
Famously, their CEO at the time, Eric Schmidt, said “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” which started a misguided argument for a whole generation (looking at you, Boomers).
This reductive and privacy-adverse argument misses a few things:
Privacy is an inherent and fundamental human right. Just because information is not a “secret” does not mean it should be freely accessible (and sold for profit) without consent.
It’s an oversimplification of the importance of privacy and the right to keep certain information private, even if it’s not a “secret.” Which leads me to…
The conflation of “personal” and “secret.” People have a reasonable expectation of privacy over many parts of their lives that are not necessarily secrets.
It fails to acknowledge the power imbalance between individual users and large tech companies like Google.
It totally dismisses the potential for abuse and overreach by governments and other authorities under the Patriot Act. Overall, it’s an oversimplification of a very complex issue that fails to recognize the fundamental right and need for privacy.
This type of statement, especially from a tech leader, shows us that even if he understood all of the above implications, he doesn’t care. And that’s extremely shortsighted. Usually when I argue with Boomers and some Gen X-ers about this, they insist (in general guys, relax), that they “wouldn’t care if Google had their information because they have nothing to hide.” What they’re referring to in their minds is info like their shoe size, the actor they searched to find out if they’re younger, or the recipe they looked up for this Sunday’s dinner. What they fail to acknowledge is that while that information may not feel like a “secret” to them, it may still be “private” info they don’t necessarily want shared with anyone or any company with $20 to spend. And by the way, if they do want to sell their own info, they should have the right to do so, not let a tech giant do it in the dark without their knowledge.
For example, I may not care if an online store has my bra size when I order from them- in fact, it’s very helpful for them to have that info. But that does not mean I’m cool with sharing that info with the guy who runs my bodega. No. Get it? Private ≠ Secret.
Now when they insist that they still don’t really care, what I hear is a fundamental lack of understanding of what privacy means and what our individual right to privacy entails. Fun fact, I actually wrote my college thesis on the topic of Internet Privacy. I’ll spare you all, but the full title was Is Internet Privacy Dead? Finding A Common Ground Between Private Companies’ Interests and Users’ Privacy Rights Online, and my conclusion was that surprise! Privacy is not dead, it’s more important than ever, and we can’t rely on companies to have users’ best interests at heart. We have to have strict privacy protection under the law.
Since I wrote that thesis a million years ago, there have been some improvements and some really scary deteriorations.
In 2016, Google quietly dropped its ban on personally-identifiable info in its ad service, DoubleClick. New users were opted in automatically, and existing users probably just clicked “accept” on the pop up without reading it.
Basically what this meant was that Google could follow you across the web anywhere you went and see all the info you input on different sites. Now, Google could build a fully complete portrait of a user by name, browsing info, email content, search history, etc.
Most people have heard of “cookies” which can also track users across the web. Now we have a different kind of problem, with every single website pushing a cookie policy as soon as you land on their site, bombarding users with a different kind of pop-up. By and large, though, users dismiss or Accept these agreements quickly and without reading them.
The EU is usually pretty on the ball with dealing with these tracking and privacy issues, but the US is always very far behind. Not getting into that now, don’t worry, but it’s important to realize since time and time again, when sued or fined, Google pretty quickly fixes these issues for EU users, but leaves US users in the dust. So, the argument that it’s “too hard to change” or that they “can’t change it” doesn’t hold up.
Most recently, the EU will be rolling out new competition rules under the Digital Market’s Act, with a March 6th 2024 deadline. The EU designated six companies as gatekeepers (Alphabet, Google’s parent company, being one of them), requiring them to comply with the DMA rules for the 22 services identified by the European Commission. What I’m concerned with here is DMA’s ban on using people’s data for advertising without their consent. Meaning, Google is forced to stop linking personal data across accounts and products, which it said it was using for “personalization” purposes. Of course, Google will not lose this quietly and will most definitely add back in some kind of pop up or banner to get users’ consent again, even though DMA also prohibits the use of “dark UI” to manipulate users into giving their consent.
Another interesting new feature that Google has beta-launched this year is the depreciation of third-party cookies. I can’t help but think their new feature, this “Tracking Protection” initiative, is in response to the growing awareness and disapproval of the tracking and sharing that’s been going on with cookies for ages. Apparently, Tracking Protection will limit the use of cross-site tracking by automatically declining cookies on third-party sites. Apparently the EU is already looking into this because of its obvious anti-competitive implications. Basically, Tracking Protection will box out any competition in digital advertising that uses third-party cookies, making everyone more reliant on Google’s own products for analytics, targeting, and measurability.
One more thing to think about in this privacy discussion is the idea of data breaches and hacks. It’s not unique to Google, but since Google has by far the most data on users across the internet, it’s very concerning that they’ve had multiple data breaches and security incidents over the years in which user data has been compromised. In January 2023, Google’s cell network provider Google Fi confirmed a breach which allowed hackers to steal 37 million customers’ data, including phone numbers, accounts status, SIM card numbers, and more. Like I said, this is a concern with every tech company, but when you have more than 37 million customers on just one of your products, you need to have higher standards.
By the way, think you’re safe using Incognito Mode? Think again. In April 2020, Google was sued for at least $5 billion for tracking people in, you guessed it, Incognito Mode. For those of you who don’t know, Incognito Mode is a feature in Google Chrome that allows users to browse the internet without tracking. It’s specifically touted as a private browsing mode for users. But in “Kind of Unsurprising News,” this class-action lawsuit alleged that Google was actually tracking browsing activity, cookies, analytics, and more while in Incognito Mode. Google agreed to settle the lawsuit in 2023, but there are more lawsuits against the tech giant about these privacy-violating practices.
These lawsuits are also contributing to the growing consciousness of the average user’s online privacy. Users aren’t just more concerned, they’re making different choices to protect themselves. They’re adjusting their search settings, deleting apps, clicking “no” on those cookie pop ups, and even using different privacy-first search engines, like Mojeek, and more.
We’ve all seen the memes and had our own experiences with too-personalized ads on the internet, searches following us across platforms, and even devices listening to us when we’re not talking to them.
Many people in the younger generations felt (overall) that if the utility of the platform or service outweighed that “creepiness” factor of highly personalized ads, they felt comfortable.
But now, around 80% of Americans think the potential risks of personal data collection outweigh the benefits, and 79% of adults are concerned about how companies use the data. We’re seeing more people turn to privacy-focused search engines like DuckDuckGo, which broke the 100 million mark in daily mobile searches in January 2021. DDG is different in that it doesn't collect user data for profiling and personalization. Instead, it pulls from over 400 sources and crowdsourced sites like Wikipedia, but not Google. Never Google.
How does it make money, you might be wondering, as the capitalist Boomer you are? It uses keyword-based advertising, which still has tons of utility for users, but it doesn’t track your personal information to deliver results. Their bidding for search ads is based on “keywords, not people."
I’ve also mentioned Brave, which was first introduced as a web browser but also has a privacy-first search engine product. Brave has a unique approach to revenue: it shows Brave Ads, which are an opt-in advertising platform that rewards users for viewing non-invasive ads. You can use the rewards (which are Basic Attention Tokens) to tip websites or content creators, or just withdraw them as cash. Again, they don’t track users’ personal information to earn revenue from advertisers.
Listen, I’m not arguing that these search engine alternatives will dominate the market any time soon, but they’re definitely growing in users and daily searches. But this shift in consumer awareness and preferences creates an opportunity for these smaller, privacy-focused search engines to gain market share. I think over time, these smaller players could start to erode some of Google’s market share, especially among tech-savvy, privacy-conscious consumers, and Gitsul Group blog readers. Eventually, with the mounting pressure from users, regulatory bodies, lawsuits, and competitors, I believe Google will have to change their policies and practices in favor of user privacy and data protection.
In the meantime, we continue to watch the downfall of Google Search in real time. Next up, Part 3, in which I discuss the last element of Google Search’s impending demise: the degradation of search result quality, which is arguably the most utilitarian of the three.
Stay tuned for the last part of the trilogy, and thanks for reading, fellow nerds!
This article was originally posted on a Squarespace domain on 4/9/24. Comments from that domain have been lost.
Now that you’ve read Part 1 of my 3-part series on The Fall of Google Search, you’re well aware of the backlash against Google’s use of advertising.
To recap, Google holds the overwhelming majority of the search engine market with about 92% of all searches on average worldwide. Its nearest competitor, Bing, has only around 3-4% of the global market share.
Lots of searches, and I mean LOTS: approximately 8.5 billion searches each day worldwide, means a lot of eyeballs. A lot of eyeballs in our capitalist society means a lot of potential for revenue. Easiest way to do that? Advertising. And Google made about $237.8 billion in ads in 2023, which was “low” according to their projections.
While Google was busy making money off of our earnest searches for information, the user was getting absolutely bombarded by sponsored posts, Amazon listings, and SERP defaulting to the “Shopping” tab.
In Part 1, we talked about how people are fed up with this ad-forward experience and are increasingly using ad-blocking software and turning to ad-free alternatives.
But here’s the thing: users are also increasingly understanding the implications of all of these ads, and it's not just the fact that they’re reduced to a dollar sign. It’s the fact that all of these ads, and their progressively personalized nature, are farming their data. According to the Privacy and Consumer Trust (2023), 68% of consumers globally are either somewhat or very concerned about their privacy online. We’ve known for quite a while that Google was collecting our data, but in 2012 Google actually changed their privacy policy to allow sharing our data with third-party websites that use AdSense and Analytics (two more of their products contributing to that monopoly I talked about), causing privacy concerns to move to the forefront of users’ brains.
Famously, their CEO at the time, Eric Schmidt, said “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” which started a misguided argument for a whole generation (looking at you, Boomers).
This reductive and privacy-adverse argument misses a few things:
Privacy is an inherent and fundamental human right. Just because information is not a “secret” does not mean it should be freely accessible (and sold for profit) without consent.
It’s an oversimplification of the importance of privacy and the right to keep certain information private, even if it’s not a “secret.” Which leads me to…
The conflation of “personal” and “secret.” People have a reasonable expectation of privacy over many parts of their lives that are not necessarily secrets.
It fails to acknowledge the power imbalance between individual users and large tech companies like Google.
It totally dismisses the potential for abuse and overreach by governments and other authorities under the Patriot Act. Overall, it’s an oversimplification of a very complex issue that fails to recognize the fundamental right and need for privacy.
This type of statement, especially from a tech leader, shows us that even if he understood all of the above implications, he doesn’t care. And that’s extremely shortsighted. Usually when I argue with Boomers and some Gen X-ers about this, they insist (in general guys, relax), that they “wouldn’t care if Google had their information because they have nothing to hide.” What they’re referring to in their minds is info like their shoe size, the actor they searched to find out if they’re younger, or the recipe they looked up for this Sunday’s dinner. What they fail to acknowledge is that while that information may not feel like a “secret” to them, it may still be “private” info they don’t necessarily want shared with anyone or any company with $20 to spend. And by the way, if they do want to sell their own info, they should have the right to do so, not let a tech giant do it in the dark without their knowledge.
For example, I may not care if an online store has my bra size when I order from them- in fact, it’s very helpful for them to have that info. But that does not mean I’m cool with sharing that info with the guy who runs my bodega. No. Get it? Private ≠ Secret.
Now when they insist that they still don’t really care, what I hear is a fundamental lack of understanding of what privacy means and what our individual right to privacy entails. Fun fact, I actually wrote my college thesis on the topic of Internet Privacy. I’ll spare you all, but the full title was Is Internet Privacy Dead? Finding A Common Ground Between Private Companies’ Interests and Users’ Privacy Rights Online, and my conclusion was that surprise! Privacy is not dead, it’s more important than ever, and we can’t rely on companies to have users’ best interests at heart. We have to have strict privacy protection under the law.
Since I wrote that thesis a million years ago, there have been some improvements and some really scary deteriorations.
In 2016, Google quietly dropped its ban on personally-identifiable info in its ad service, DoubleClick. New users were opted in automatically, and existing users probably just clicked “accept” on the pop up without reading it.
Basically what this meant was that Google could follow you across the web anywhere you went and see all the info you input on different sites. Now, Google could build a fully complete portrait of a user by name, browsing info, email content, search history, etc.
Most people have heard of “cookies” which can also track users across the web. Now we have a different kind of problem, with every single website pushing a cookie policy as soon as you land on their site, bombarding users with a different kind of pop-up. By and large, though, users dismiss or Accept these agreements quickly and without reading them.
The EU is usually pretty on the ball with dealing with these tracking and privacy issues, but the US is always very far behind. Not getting into that now, don’t worry, but it’s important to realize since time and time again, when sued or fined, Google pretty quickly fixes these issues for EU users, but leaves US users in the dust. So, the argument that it’s “too hard to change” or that they “can’t change it” doesn’t hold up.
Most recently, the EU will be rolling out new competition rules under the Digital Market’s Act, with a March 6th 2024 deadline. The EU designated six companies as gatekeepers (Alphabet, Google’s parent company, being one of them), requiring them to comply with the DMA rules for the 22 services identified by the European Commission. What I’m concerned with here is DMA’s ban on using people’s data for advertising without their consent. Meaning, Google is forced to stop linking personal data across accounts and products, which it said it was using for “personalization” purposes. Of course, Google will not lose this quietly and will most definitely add back in some kind of pop up or banner to get users’ consent again, even though DMA also prohibits the use of “dark UI” to manipulate users into giving their consent.
Another interesting new feature that Google has beta-launched this year is the depreciation of third-party cookies. I can’t help but think their new feature, this “Tracking Protection” initiative, is in response to the growing awareness and disapproval of the tracking and sharing that’s been going on with cookies for ages. Apparently, Tracking Protection will limit the use of cross-site tracking by automatically declining cookies on third-party sites. Apparently the EU is already looking into this because of its obvious anti-competitive implications. Basically, Tracking Protection will box out any competition in digital advertising that uses third-party cookies, making everyone more reliant on Google’s own products for analytics, targeting, and measurability.
One more thing to think about in this privacy discussion is the idea of data breaches and hacks. It’s not unique to Google, but since Google has by far the most data on users across the internet, it’s very concerning that they’ve had multiple data breaches and security incidents over the years in which user data has been compromised. In January 2023, Google’s cell network provider Google Fi confirmed a breach which allowed hackers to steal 37 million customers’ data, including phone numbers, accounts status, SIM card numbers, and more. Like I said, this is a concern with every tech company, but when you have more than 37 million customers on just one of your products, you need to have higher standards.
By the way, think you’re safe using Incognito Mode? Think again. In April 2020, Google was sued for at least $5 billion for tracking people in, you guessed it, Incognito Mode. For those of you who don’t know, Incognito Mode is a feature in Google Chrome that allows users to browse the internet without tracking. It’s specifically touted as a private browsing mode for users. But in “Kind of Unsurprising News,” this class-action lawsuit alleged that Google was actually tracking browsing activity, cookies, analytics, and more while in Incognito Mode. Google agreed to settle the lawsuit in 2023, but there are more lawsuits against the tech giant about these privacy-violating practices.
These lawsuits are also contributing to the growing consciousness of the average user’s online privacy. Users aren’t just more concerned, they’re making different choices to protect themselves. They’re adjusting their search settings, deleting apps, clicking “no” on those cookie pop ups, and even using different privacy-first search engines, like Mojeek, and more.
We’ve all seen the memes and had our own experiences with too-personalized ads on the internet, searches following us across platforms, and even devices listening to us when we’re not talking to them.
Many people in the younger generations felt (overall) that if the utility of the platform or service outweighed that “creepiness” factor of highly personalized ads, they felt comfortable.
But now, around 80% of Americans think the potential risks of personal data collection outweigh the benefits, and 79% of adults are concerned about how companies use the data. We’re seeing more people turn to privacy-focused search engines like DuckDuckGo, which broke the 100 million mark in daily mobile searches in January 2021. DDG is different in that it doesn't collect user data for profiling and personalization. Instead, it pulls from over 400 sources and crowdsourced sites like Wikipedia, but not Google. Never Google.
How does it make money, you might be wondering, as the capitalist Boomer you are? It uses keyword-based advertising, which still has tons of utility for users, but it doesn’t track your personal information to deliver results. Their bidding for search ads is based on “keywords, not people."
I’ve also mentioned Brave, which was first introduced as a web browser but also has a privacy-first search engine product. Brave has a unique approach to revenue: it shows Brave Ads, which are an opt-in advertising platform that rewards users for viewing non-invasive ads. You can use the rewards (which are Basic Attention Tokens) to tip websites or content creators, or just withdraw them as cash. Again, they don’t track users’ personal information to earn revenue from advertisers.
Listen, I’m not arguing that these search engine alternatives will dominate the market any time soon, but they’re definitely growing in users and daily searches. But this shift in consumer awareness and preferences creates an opportunity for these smaller, privacy-focused search engines to gain market share. I think over time, these smaller players could start to erode some of Google’s market share, especially among tech-savvy, privacy-conscious consumers, and Gitsul Group blog readers. Eventually, with the mounting pressure from users, regulatory bodies, lawsuits, and competitors, I believe Google will have to change their policies and practices in favor of user privacy and data protection.
In the meantime, we continue to watch the downfall of Google Search in real time. Next up, Part 3, in which I discuss the last element of Google Search’s impending demise: the degradation of search result quality, which is arguably the most utilitarian of the three.
Stay tuned for the last part of the trilogy, and thanks for reading, fellow nerds!
This article was originally posted on a Squarespace domain on 4/9/24. Comments from that domain have been lost.
Now that you’ve read Part 1 of my 3-part series on The Fall of Google Search, you’re well aware of the backlash against Google’s use of advertising.
To recap, Google holds the overwhelming majority of the search engine market with about 92% of all searches on average worldwide. Its nearest competitor, Bing, has only around 3-4% of the global market share.
Lots of searches, and I mean LOTS: approximately 8.5 billion searches each day worldwide, means a lot of eyeballs. A lot of eyeballs in our capitalist society means a lot of potential for revenue. Easiest way to do that? Advertising. And Google made about $237.8 billion in ads in 2023, which was “low” according to their projections.
While Google was busy making money off of our earnest searches for information, the user was getting absolutely bombarded by sponsored posts, Amazon listings, and SERP defaulting to the “Shopping” tab.
In Part 1, we talked about how people are fed up with this ad-forward experience and are increasingly using ad-blocking software and turning to ad-free alternatives.
But here’s the thing: users are also increasingly understanding the implications of all of these ads, and it's not just the fact that they’re reduced to a dollar sign. It’s the fact that all of these ads, and their progressively personalized nature, are farming their data. According to the Privacy and Consumer Trust (2023), 68% of consumers globally are either somewhat or very concerned about their privacy online. We’ve known for quite a while that Google was collecting our data, but in 2012 Google actually changed their privacy policy to allow sharing our data with third-party websites that use AdSense and Analytics (two more of their products contributing to that monopoly I talked about), causing privacy concerns to move to the forefront of users’ brains.
Famously, their CEO at the time, Eric Schmidt, said “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” which started a misguided argument for a whole generation (looking at you, Boomers).
This reductive and privacy-adverse argument misses a few things:
Privacy is an inherent and fundamental human right. Just because information is not a “secret” does not mean it should be freely accessible (and sold for profit) without consent.
It’s an oversimplification of the importance of privacy and the right to keep certain information private, even if it’s not a “secret.” Which leads me to…
The conflation of “personal” and “secret.” People have a reasonable expectation of privacy over many parts of their lives that are not necessarily secrets.
It fails to acknowledge the power imbalance between individual users and large tech companies like Google.
It totally dismisses the potential for abuse and overreach by governments and other authorities under the Patriot Act. Overall, it’s an oversimplification of a very complex issue that fails to recognize the fundamental right and need for privacy.
This type of statement, especially from a tech leader, shows us that even if he understood all of the above implications, he doesn’t care. And that’s extremely shortsighted. Usually when I argue with Boomers and some Gen X-ers about this, they insist (in general guys, relax), that they “wouldn’t care if Google had their information because they have nothing to hide.” What they’re referring to in their minds is info like their shoe size, the actor they searched to find out if they’re younger, or the recipe they looked up for this Sunday’s dinner. What they fail to acknowledge is that while that information may not feel like a “secret” to them, it may still be “private” info they don’t necessarily want shared with anyone or any company with $20 to spend. And by the way, if they do want to sell their own info, they should have the right to do so, not let a tech giant do it in the dark without their knowledge.
For example, I may not care if an online store has my bra size when I order from them- in fact, it’s very helpful for them to have that info. But that does not mean I’m cool with sharing that info with the guy who runs my bodega. No. Get it? Private ≠ Secret.
Now when they insist that they still don’t really care, what I hear is a fundamental lack of understanding of what privacy means and what our individual right to privacy entails. Fun fact, I actually wrote my college thesis on the topic of Internet Privacy. I’ll spare you all, but the full title was Is Internet Privacy Dead? Finding A Common Ground Between Private Companies’ Interests and Users’ Privacy Rights Online, and my conclusion was that surprise! Privacy is not dead, it’s more important than ever, and we can’t rely on companies to have users’ best interests at heart. We have to have strict privacy protection under the law.
Since I wrote that thesis a million years ago, there have been some improvements and some really scary deteriorations.
In 2016, Google quietly dropped its ban on personally-identifiable info in its ad service, DoubleClick. New users were opted in automatically, and existing users probably just clicked “accept” on the pop up without reading it.
Basically what this meant was that Google could follow you across the web anywhere you went and see all the info you input on different sites. Now, Google could build a fully complete portrait of a user by name, browsing info, email content, search history, etc.
Most people have heard of “cookies” which can also track users across the web. Now we have a different kind of problem, with every single website pushing a cookie policy as soon as you land on their site, bombarding users with a different kind of pop-up. By and large, though, users dismiss or Accept these agreements quickly and without reading them.
The EU is usually pretty on the ball with dealing with these tracking and privacy issues, but the US is always very far behind. Not getting into that now, don’t worry, but it’s important to realize since time and time again, when sued or fined, Google pretty quickly fixes these issues for EU users, but leaves US users in the dust. So, the argument that it’s “too hard to change” or that they “can’t change it” doesn’t hold up.
Most recently, the EU will be rolling out new competition rules under the Digital Market’s Act, with a March 6th 2024 deadline. The EU designated six companies as gatekeepers (Alphabet, Google’s parent company, being one of them), requiring them to comply with the DMA rules for the 22 services identified by the European Commission. What I’m concerned with here is DMA’s ban on using people’s data for advertising without their consent. Meaning, Google is forced to stop linking personal data across accounts and products, which it said it was using for “personalization” purposes. Of course, Google will not lose this quietly and will most definitely add back in some kind of pop up or banner to get users’ consent again, even though DMA also prohibits the use of “dark UI” to manipulate users into giving their consent.
Another interesting new feature that Google has beta-launched this year is the depreciation of third-party cookies. I can’t help but think their new feature, this “Tracking Protection” initiative, is in response to the growing awareness and disapproval of the tracking and sharing that’s been going on with cookies for ages. Apparently, Tracking Protection will limit the use of cross-site tracking by automatically declining cookies on third-party sites. Apparently the EU is already looking into this because of its obvious anti-competitive implications. Basically, Tracking Protection will box out any competition in digital advertising that uses third-party cookies, making everyone more reliant on Google’s own products for analytics, targeting, and measurability.
One more thing to think about in this privacy discussion is the idea of data breaches and hacks. It’s not unique to Google, but since Google has by far the most data on users across the internet, it’s very concerning that they’ve had multiple data breaches and security incidents over the years in which user data has been compromised. In January 2023, Google’s cell network provider Google Fi confirmed a breach which allowed hackers to steal 37 million customers’ data, including phone numbers, accounts status, SIM card numbers, and more. Like I said, this is a concern with every tech company, but when you have more than 37 million customers on just one of your products, you need to have higher standards.
By the way, think you’re safe using Incognito Mode? Think again. In April 2020, Google was sued for at least $5 billion for tracking people in, you guessed it, Incognito Mode. For those of you who don’t know, Incognito Mode is a feature in Google Chrome that allows users to browse the internet without tracking. It’s specifically touted as a private browsing mode for users. But in “Kind of Unsurprising News,” this class-action lawsuit alleged that Google was actually tracking browsing activity, cookies, analytics, and more while in Incognito Mode. Google agreed to settle the lawsuit in 2023, but there are more lawsuits against the tech giant about these privacy-violating practices.
These lawsuits are also contributing to the growing consciousness of the average user’s online privacy. Users aren’t just more concerned, they’re making different choices to protect themselves. They’re adjusting their search settings, deleting apps, clicking “no” on those cookie pop ups, and even using different privacy-first search engines, like Mojeek, and more.
We’ve all seen the memes and had our own experiences with too-personalized ads on the internet, searches following us across platforms, and even devices listening to us when we’re not talking to them.
Many people in the younger generations felt (overall) that if the utility of the platform or service outweighed that “creepiness” factor of highly personalized ads, they felt comfortable.
But now, around 80% of Americans think the potential risks of personal data collection outweigh the benefits, and 79% of adults are concerned about how companies use the data. We’re seeing more people turn to privacy-focused search engines like DuckDuckGo, which broke the 100 million mark in daily mobile searches in January 2021. DDG is different in that it doesn't collect user data for profiling and personalization. Instead, it pulls from over 400 sources and crowdsourced sites like Wikipedia, but not Google. Never Google.
How does it make money, you might be wondering, as the capitalist Boomer you are? It uses keyword-based advertising, which still has tons of utility for users, but it doesn’t track your personal information to deliver results. Their bidding for search ads is based on “keywords, not people."
I’ve also mentioned Brave, which was first introduced as a web browser but also has a privacy-first search engine product. Brave has a unique approach to revenue: it shows Brave Ads, which are an opt-in advertising platform that rewards users for viewing non-invasive ads. You can use the rewards (which are Basic Attention Tokens) to tip websites or content creators, or just withdraw them as cash. Again, they don’t track users’ personal information to earn revenue from advertisers.
Listen, I’m not arguing that these search engine alternatives will dominate the market any time soon, but they’re definitely growing in users and daily searches. But this shift in consumer awareness and preferences creates an opportunity for these smaller, privacy-focused search engines to gain market share. I think over time, these smaller players could start to erode some of Google’s market share, especially among tech-savvy, privacy-conscious consumers, and Gitsul Group blog readers. Eventually, with the mounting pressure from users, regulatory bodies, lawsuits, and competitors, I believe Google will have to change their policies and practices in favor of user privacy and data protection.
In the meantime, we continue to watch the downfall of Google Search in real time. Next up, Part 3, in which I discuss the last element of Google Search’s impending demise: the degradation of search result quality, which is arguably the most utilitarian of the three.
Stay tuned for the last part of the trilogy, and thanks for reading, fellow nerds!
This article was originally posted on a Squarespace domain on 4/9/24. Comments from that domain have been lost.