You must log in or register to comment.

HTC864 t1_jdv2tlu wrote

There's a lot of dots being connected in this article without reason or proof. The author is simply throwing supposition at the reader and hoping they don't notice there's not much to back it up.


beef-o-lipso t1_jdv3zca wrote

Yes. It's called opinion. See the heading Discourse|Tech at the very top set off by blue, bold type? That tell you it's not news.

So don't expect the same rigor^1 from opinion pieces as you'd expect from content labeled News.

If it were presented as News, the demand for rigor is higher. Of course, good writing and good rhetoric says the author should back their claims, but there is less need to.

  1. I am not stating an opinion on the rigor or lack of rigor Business Insider adheres to.

iPeculiarly t1_jdv92qf wrote

I'm not sure your logic follows

If it was presented as "news" it would be more rigorous?

Explain fox news. It's literally presented as news.

Also, fyi you are the one that called it news, OP called it an article



rddman t1_jdvf9ku wrote

Right, because we know that investors totally are not a major influence on big corporation's business direction and their primary motivation is money, not good products - just so long as they can get away with that.


GhostFish t1_jdvkqfv wrote

>A simple search for "best pc for gaming" leads to a page dominated by sponsored links rather than helpful advice on which computer to buy.

If this is how you open then I'm not going to bother to read the rest.

The ads might not seem helpful, but the query is braindead. If you seriously type this into Google then you don't know what you're asking for. You're actually better off going with one of those mass-market gaming PCs that are being advertised.

If you actually want to know the right answer to this question, you don't ask Google to recommend a PC. You look at the games you want to play and the hardware they recommend. Then you can decide which prebuilt system is right for you or if you want to build your own.

The sponsored links, like it or not, are probably the most frustration free direction to take for someone making that braindead query.


ShenmeNamaeSollich t1_jdvm9qq wrote

Fox News lawyers literally claimed “no reasonable person” should take Tucker Carlson as news, and won their case because the judge agreed his reputation as a lying exaggerating shithead should be enough for people to realize he’s a lying shithead. But that judge clearly overestimated the intelligence of Fox News’ audience.

Also, apparently legal precedent now says as long as you’re such a huge bloviating piece of shit that everyone “reasonable” knows you as such, you can get away with lying on air to millions of people, so they’re not going to stop - they now have a clear incentive to be even worse and keep pushing boundaries that appeal to the dumbest & least reasonable people out there.


grassytoes t1_jdvrtx5 wrote

When I tried that exact search just now as a test, it wasn't even that bad. The top hits were articles by PCGamer, Tom's Hardware and other tech sites, with titles like "Best Gaming PCs in 2023". Sounds reasonable.

When I turned off ad-block, the top 3 were sponsored. Which is hardly "dominating" the page. So the article is overblowing the whole thing anyway.


Dio_Yuji t1_jdvsgbb wrote

By “its stuff” do they mean people? If so, I concur


MrSrsen t1_jdvukgn wrote

This is summary from ChatGPT:

>According to an opinion piece, tech giants have increasingly been prioritising their stock prices over their users' experience. In order to generate short-term profits, many have resorted to flooding users' feeds with sponsored content, obscuring genuine search results and over-monetising every customer interaction. While the author acknowledges the explosive growth that characterised Silicon Valley's early years, they argue that the slowdown experienced in recent years has triggered a crisis and prompted a search for a "second magical growth engine" at the expense of their original mission. The best example of this, the author writes, is Meta's pivot to the metaverse and decision to abandon its core product. The article concludes by warning that tech titans should learn from the experience of companies such as General Electric and focus on innovation and delivering what customers want, rather than chasing short-term fads.


SAGreer t1_jdvye6y wrote

Wow - I had never done that before. It’s pretty wild.

Here’s the summary I got:

The article discusses how the tech industry's drive to optimize engagement and revenue is causing harm to users and the internet as a whole. It argues that tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are among the worst offenders, using manipulative design tactics and invasive data collection to keep users hooked and maximize profits. The article suggests that the tech industry needs to prioritize ethical design principles and user privacy to prevent further damage to the internet and its users.


PitterPatter12345678 t1_jdw3wwz wrote

The article may be repetitive, but poor writing shouldn't obscure the fact being reported. Which is 100 % true by the way.


okvrdz t1_jdw41aq wrote

I remember when best web practices were a thing. One of the sacred ones was to not use pop-ups. You could find them in tabloids and other low-level websites of the kind. Forward 15 years to today and now even the most prestigious websites do it. I’d say that’s a good example.


UnfinishedProjects t1_jdwfb6w wrote

There's no incentive. Play dumb, sellout all your customers for a ton of short term cash, oops! We didn't mean to!, roll everything back and wait for your customer base to build up again, repeat indefinitely. Until we get some laws that are more than a slap on the wrist for big tech companies.


K----_ST t1_jdwfi1q wrote

You need proof that Amazon sells low quality shit? And that google has become cumbersome? and that Facebook force feeds you shit content that you don't want to see? lol wat? Are you going to tell me next that there's no proof of planned obsolesence or right to repair issues?


Gold_Sky3617 t1_jdwrktr wrote

The problem is the original vision of many of these companies was always total nonsense. The only way for many of these companies to be profitable at the level investors demand is to do the things that make user experiences worse such as intrusive ads and dubious policies around user data. This pot has been boiling for a long time and it’s boiling over now because with rates going up the barrier to entry is higher now than ever. They don’t have the same risk of being replaced when the cost of startup capital is getting increasingly more expensive.


MarkusTeak t1_jdww1q5 wrote

There’s actually one bit of tech that’s “relatively” simple that’s currently being hidden from public use because it would diminish big tech profits from monetizing users at scale. The founders aren’t obscenely wealthy, from what I remember they weren’t even close to being millionaires let alone billionaires, but they got threats and went into obscurity to let the heat die down from the big tech companies and investors. It would be quite a radical phase in tech that actually benefits humanity by raising the floor for billions instead increasing the ceilings of folks who already have 50ft ceilings. Imagine if lies, bad ideas and money weren’t such pervasive motivators for innovation and building. Anyway - thanks for sharing.


spisHjerner t1_jdxbfbr wrote

A generous take on a series of bad decisions by CEOs at all these companies. Stop giving these people more credit by saying things like "on purpose" and "to appease investors." These corporations are out of touch and made huge amounts of risky investments that didn't pan out. They deserve to fail.


Mods_suck_42069 t1_jdxfejh wrote

Explains a lot about Reddit as well, and the collusion between the "Power mod jannies" and the admins. Hell, that could be approximately a dozen or so paragraphs just covering what Reddit was in 2010 versus how it is today.


JamesVogner t1_jdxlp9h wrote

Ironically, I clicked on the link and was prompted to download the app, wait a second or two for some nonessential api call on the popup to load, close some other popup that I've already forgotten the content of, and then i could finally read the article, which seemed to be written more for SEO than ease of reading.


talley89 t1_jdxn2zh wrote

From the brilliantly written article which I challenge anyone to dispute

Google users have developed one very specific complaint about the ubiquitous search engine: They can't find any answers. A simple search for "best pc for gaming" leads to a page dominated by sponsored links rather than helpful advice on which computer to buy. Meanwhile, the actual results are chock-full of low-quality, search-engine-optimized affiliate content designed to generate money for the publisher rather than provide high-quality answers. As a result, users have resorted to work-arounds and hacks to try and find useful information among the ads and low-quality chum. In short, Google's flagship service now sucks.

And Google isn't the only tech giant with a slowly deteriorating core product. Facebook, a website ostensibly for finding and connecting with your friends, constantly floods users' feeds with sponsored (or "recommended") content, and seems to bury the things people want to see under what Facebook decides is relevant. And as journalist John Herrman wrote earlier this year, the "junkification of Amazon" has made it nearly impossible for users to find a high-quality product they want — instead diverting people to ad-riddled result pages filled with low-quality products from sellers who know how to game the system.


notonyanellymate t1_jdxrr9n wrote

I remember when the Alta Vista web browser used to be trim and show the best result in the the first few, then it became bloated with ads, then you had to go to page 10 to see a useful result. Google started like Alta Vista started, refreshing, but now you too frequently have to go to page 10 to find what you want.


gurenkagurenda t1_jdxxw61 wrote

Not for most, if any users. There's a "plugins" model you can get to through a waitlist, but while there's apparently a first party web plugin being developed internally, it isn't publicly available. Everything you can actually get to is just specific APIs.


garlicroastedpotato t1_jdy4fx7 wrote

I mean... they don't even give the real reason why a lot of these services can do this.... it's because a lot of their original content is just not being generated.

Like Google is "so good" right now that no one really cares about results beyond the first three. That gives 8-10 results that Google can now use for advertising space because no one was really going to care about those 8-10 results (although it does get absurd with travel stuff because now Google has its own booking agent).

Facebook doesn't actually have a lot of user generated content anymore between friends. Looking at the first ten friends that showup on my friend's list, one person hasn't posted in a year, eight people only seem to share stuff from groups, and one person is heavily posting for their multi level marketing business. Every time I log into Facebook I should see something new if I'm going to come back more frequently, so they fill in these gaps with advertised content, Instagram videos, and Marketplace listings.

They're slowed down and less functional because people use them differently now.


K----_ST t1_jdyap76 wrote

I think it's more than this, at least for FB. FB has always strived to manipulate feeds. Before it left chronological feeds just over a decade ago, they were busted for doing psychological experiments by manipulating user feeds without user consent. Of course that 'consent' came in the form of the ToS, which gradually evolved over so many years. Needless to say, FB has pissed off tons of users. Even through Covid and the election, a large chunk of people left and they left because they do'nt want the manipulation. Unfortunately, the newer generation is growing up with this as the new normal.

The article:


Head-Ad4770 t1_jdyjppe wrote

Yep, not to mention ads on YouTube getting increasingly longer and UNSKIPPABLE. 🤬


654342 t1_jdyrsp9 wrote

Who is "bIG tECH" and how do I personally let them know how I feel about this clickbait title?


SpaceNerd422 t1_jdz8c4l wrote

Yyuuuppp. Came here to say this. I've been a web dev since before mobile responsive was a thing. I miss the "User comes first" outlook. Now, job applications scream for devs who understand good user experience. Then, when you start working on a project, there's some user experience concerns, but it all gets thrown out the window for the sake of ads, pop-ups, whatever. I've had so many heated discussions in meetings about the trashing of UX.


TheMostDoomed t1_jdzof10 wrote

Certainly feels like they are making things slower... my RTX 3080ti does not feel like much of an upgrade these days...


Glissssy t1_jdzq1jo wrote

Can we get a businessinsider filter? their articles are awful.


fatnoah t1_jdzraz4 wrote

I can only speak to Facebook since that's what I have knowledge of, but I agree with the premise that user experience gets sacrificed to juice numbers. The market rewards growth, so that's what companies optimize for. When the growth doesn't happen, a company that still makes tens of billions of dollars in profit takes a huge stock price beating.

The people who work at the company are paid partly in stock, and that stock becomes 40-75% or more of their compensation at higher levels. Throw in an employee review process where increasing metric X by Y% can be called success and net you a nice multiplier of 25%-300% to your annual bonus and annual stock grant, and you can be damn sure the employees are focused on the stock price as well.

TBH, focus on AR and the Metaverse is one reason I have more respect for Zuckerberg. Current offerings are the equivalent of early tech demos and don't represent anything approaching a "final" result. This is a long range vision and will require many years of work for the hardware and software to even be remotely capable. This comes with a big hit to stock price, though.

Who knows if it'll be successful, but it's nice to see a company take a gamble on a long range vision, even if it's partly out of necessity due to the current market being tapped out.


-UltraAverageJoe- t1_jdzrgj3 wrote

When your user base has reached critical mass, the founders are rich beyond belief, and investors/Wall Street are breathing down your neck, it’s really easy to focus on short-term goals instead of your users.

And this is why we as a people should truly be focused on competition and anti big company. No one can compete with Google or Apple or Microsoft and those who may will just be acquired if they are a threat.


Top_Requirement_1341 t1_jdzsbag wrote

Startup / growth / explosive growth / exploit users for max short term profit before they realise and get pissed off (boiled frog experience) / bailout before the layoffs start.

What? You were too stupid to get out?


bombayblue t1_je08tax wrote

Companies abandoning their core competencies (and losing customers in the process) in order to pursue greener pastures is a tale as old as time.

These products will be replaced by competitors eventually that prioritize the customer experience.


TbonerT t1_je0n2rc wrote

There's a meme that shows a microsoft desktop app as an airplane cockpit full of dials and switches and the mobile app is a tiny keyboard with 3 buttons.


Effective_Bit7637 t1_je1r25z wrote

My wife and I both went 90 days without any technology we decided to take a trip to Scotland and give up our phones and every other connection we had to the outside world. Just had a camera with a memory card and that was it. After 3 weeks my wife noticed that there was a difference in the way my hair and my skin looked I was less stressed out I was sleeping better I was eating better and I was losing weight in a healthy way. Sooner or later you're just going to have to realize that if you want to live a long healthy happy life you need to put all this text shit down and walk away from it. It does not improve the quality of our lives anyway all it does is mask with artificial bullshit.


Bearet t1_je2z2d8 wrote

Not a surprise. I have two laptops: one is a fairly recent Core i7 with all the bells and whistles. The other is a Core 2 Duo with next to nothing. Amazingly, or not, some games play better on it than on the super computer on your lap(top).