Wow some terrible reporting about Google's latest horrible ideas about how to distort information access in the name of "convenience" (or something):
https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/19/google-search-as-you-know-it-is-over/
A short thread
🧵>>
Post
Replies:
13
Boosts:
15
@emilymbender I saw someone toot about that Tuesday afternoon, and my reaction to the article was, "So TechCrunch is rewriting Google press releases?" Not a critical thought expressed in the article. IIRC, no quotes from anyone at all, positive or negative. Just a list of supposedly useful features and enhancements.
Feh.
@emilymbender The good news: nobody needs #google. I've blocked all their MTAs, and resisted using their apps for quite some time. No problems so far.
@emilymbender 2.5 billion users a month they claim.
Having an AI summary forced into every search doesn't make the searcher a user of the tech. How many people simply ignore the summary?
@emilymbender yeah, even for someone who is pro-tech and interested in AI developments, this @TechCrunch piece read like a press release. It was journalistically extremely weak to the point I felt dumber for reading it.
@emilymbender i'm fucking weepi ng
Information-gathering agents are an evolution of Google
i have never observed google demonstrate any behavior that struck me as evidence of them gathering any form of information
Links will become an afterthought
that reminds me how they own the w3c and use it to ensure no one who has ever created a webpage will ever be able to show it to anyone without exposing them to the most openly broken cryptography i've ever seem
There’s little time left for publishers to adapt.
openly gloating
which will eventually be free
that's right. we will all be free. that's a cryptographic guarantee
@hipsterelectron @emilymbender Seems more like we are free to give everything to Google for free and not get any traffic in return. 🤔
5 years ago (2021) Google researchers Metzler et al put out a preprint talking about how LLMs would change information access ("Rethinking Search"). It was full of TERRIBLE ideas, and Chirag Shah and I wrote a reply ("Situating Search"):
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3498366.3505816
>>
We followed a couple of years later with further arguments about, inter alia, protecting the information ecosystem:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649468
While Nora Lindemann was writing about similar ideas:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-024-01944-w
>>
@emilymbender i want you to know your repeated scientific deconstruction of google's ideological warfare under the guise of a search interface has enabled me to extrapolate at great length how the entire formalisms of automata theory have been constructed to exclude any investigation that could ever produce a paper with more than 1% performance improvement over their state of the art. parsing and formal languages has been dead for several decades.
google calls it a "parser confusion vulnerability" when python maintainers use features of the zip file format in their own published releases that make it impossible for specifically google to insert a cryptograpic backdoor onto their users' machines (because google owns pypi), while at the same time the python METADATA file format actively right now supports an "ambiguity' intentionally invisible to human reviewers but instructs the standard packaging software to download and execute code that won't show up in the output.
just as you said:
We revisit foundational work related to information behavior, information seeking, information retrieval, information filtering, and information access to resurface what we know about these fundamental questions and what may be missing.
i very recently realized these questions can be quantified in the field of operating system design, in a really drastic sense that led me to switch my research focus because i'm confident i can convince people every computer should work this way.
just this weekend i realized (quite by mistake) that a fact i'd known since 2019, when google made mozila and twitter lay off their teams of scientists who had just publicly demonstrated that google chrome and bazel products were neither "fast" nor "correct", in ways that are easily and obviously quantifiable, also represented a shocking and obvious failure in the entire theory of operating system design. not just that computers are slow and fail to protect the user, but how demonstrate a thrilling counterexample
which is to say, after an intensive literature review (including "standards" for "portable" behavior that were neither), i'm confident i've identified a novel property for computer security which results from a computer performance property that i could already prove 12 ways from sunday. and i now know how to construct a system that achieves both.
i found a dissertation from the single person who tried something pretty close https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/116602585443289491 but otherwise i have performed sufficient literature review to be confident i can express this result in a way that will convince any convince anyone familiar with the field that there's a whole other field they'd been missing this whole time.
and it will run on a computer or phone, to protect people from harm. it demonstrates how the temporal and spatial structure of computer memory in response to user input can be described as a correctness property of the operating system. like i did to google's bazel, it will defeat them in their own terms
thank you
But all the academic papers in the world showing why something is a bad idea won't stop companies from doing it, if it's profitable and/or fits into their quasi-religious beliefs that "AI" is the future, alas.
So let's look at what Google is up to now, or at least says they are, via TechCrunch as stenographer:
>>
Not satisfied to cut people off from the important sense-making of looking at information in its context and finding and navigating different perspectives (what "AI overviews" do), Google also wants to tell you what to search for:
>>
