Google rebrands its AI services as Gemini, launches new app and subscription service.


Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai speaks about Google DeepMind at a Google I/O event in Mountain View, Calif., Wednesday, May 10, 2023. Google on Thursday, Feb. 7, 2024, introduced a free artificial intelligence app that will implant the technology on smartphones to enable people to quickly connect to a digital brain that can write for them, interpret what they’re reading and seeing in addition to helping manage their lives.

Google on Thursday introduced a free artificial intelligence app that will enable people to rely on technology instead of their own brains to write, interpret what they’re reading and deal with a variety of other task in their lives.

With the advent of the Gemini app, named after an AI project unveiled late last year, Google will cast aside the Bard chatbot that it introduced a year ago in an effort to catch up with ChatGPT, the chatbot unleashed by the Microsoft-backed startup OpenAI in late 2022. Google is immediately releasing a standalone Gemini app for smartphones running on its Android software.

In a few weeks, Google will put Gemini’s features into its existing search app for iPhones, where Apple would prefer people rely on its Siri voice assistant for handling various tasks.

Although the Google voice assistant that has been available for years will stick around, company executives say they expect Gemini to become the main way users apply the technology to help them think, plan and create. It marks Google’s next foray down a new and potentially perilous avenue while remaining focused on its founding goal “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

“We think this is one of the most profound ways we are going to advance our mission,” Sissie Hsiao, a Google general manager overseeing Gemini, told reporters ahead of Thursday’s announcement.

The Gemini app initially will be released in the U.S. in English before expanding to the Asia-Pacific region next week, with versions in Japanese and Korean.

Besides the free version of Gemini, Google will be selling an advanced service accessible through the new app for $20 a month. The Mountain View, California, company says it is such a sophisticated form of AI that will it be able to tutor students, provide computer programming tips to engineers, dream up ideas for projects, and then create the content for the suggestions a user likes best.

The Gemini Advanced option, which will be powered by an AI technology dubbed “Ultra 1.0,” will seek to build upon the nearly 100 million worldwide subscribers that Google says it has attracted so far—most of whom pay $2 to $10 per month for additional storage to back up photos, documents and other digital material. The Gemini Advanced subscription will include 2 terabytes of storage that Google currently sells for $10 per month, meaning the company believes the AI technology is worth an additional $10 per month.

Google is offering a free two-month trial of Gemini Advanced to encourage people to try it out.

The rollout of the Gemini apps underscores the building moment to bring more AI to smartphones—devices that accompany people everywhere—as part of a trend Google began last fall when it released its latest Pixel smartphones and Samsung embraced last month with its latest Galaxy smartphones.

It also is likely to escalate the high-stakes AI showdown pitting Google against Microsoft, two of the world’s most powerful companies jockeying to get the upper hand with a technology that could reshape work, entertainment and perhaps humanity itself. The battle already has contributed to a $2 trillion increase in the combined market value of Microsoft and Google’s corporate parent, Alphabet Inc., since the end of 2022.

Google Scientists Discovered 380,000 New Materials Using Artificial Intelligence.


The Materials Project, an open-access database for new materials, is revolutionizing how researchers discover and develop materials for future technologies, with Google DeepMind contributing 400,000 new compounds. This synergy of AI, supercomputing, and experimental data speeds up the creation of materials for applications like renewable energy, efficient electronics, and environmental solutions.

The expansion of the open-access resource is instrumental for scientists in developing novel materials for future technologies.

New advancements in technology frequently necessitate the development of novel materials – and thanks to supercomputers and advanced simulations, researchers can bypass the time-consuming and often inefficient process of trial-and-error.

The Materials Project, an open-access database founded at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) in 2011, computes the properties of both known and predicted materials. Researchers can focus on promising materials for future technologies – think lighter alloys that improve fuel economy in cars, more efficient solar cells to boost renewable energy, or faster transistors for the next generation of computers. 

Now, Google DeepMind – Google’s artificial intelligence lab – is contributing nearly 400,000 new compounds to the Materials Project, expanding the amount of information researchers can draw upon. The dataset includes how the atoms of a material are arranged (the crystal structure) and how stable it is (formation energy). 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/HNNDij-AAXc?feature=oembed
The Materials Project can visualize the atomic structure of materials. This compound (Ba₆Nb₇O₂₁) is one of the new materials calculated by GNoME. It contains barium (blue), niobium (white), and oxygen (green). Credit: Materials Project/Berkeley Lab

“We have to create new materials if we are going to address the global environmental and climate challenges,” said Kristin Persson, the founder and director of the Materials Project at Berkeley Lab and a professor at UC Berkeley. “With innovation in materials, we can potentially develop recyclable plastics, harness waste energy, make better batteries, and build cheaper solar panels that last longer, among many other things.”

The Role of GNoME in Material Discovery

To generate the new data, Google DeepMind developed a deep learning tool called Graph Networks for Materials Exploration, or GNoME. Researchers trained GNoME using workflows and data that were developed over a decade by the Materials Project, and improved the GNoME algorithm through active learning. GNoME researchers ultimately produced 2.2 million crystal structures, including 380,000 that they are adding to the Materials Project and predict are stable, making them potentially useful in future technologies. The new results from Google DeepMind were recently published in the journal Nature.

Robots guided by artificial intelligence created more than 40 new materials predicted by the Materials Project. Data from GNoME was used as an additional check on whether those predicted materials would be stable. Credit: Marilyn Sargent/Berkeley Lab

Some of the computations from GNoME were used alongside data from the Materials Project to test A-Lab, a facility at Berkeley Lab where artificial intelligence guides robots in making new materials. A-Lab’s first paper, also published in Nature, showed that the autonomous lab can quickly discover novel materials with minimal human input. 

Over 17 days of independent operation, A-Lab successfully produced 41 new compounds out of an attempted 58 – a rate of more than two new materials per day. For comparison, it can take a human researcher months of guesswork and experimentation to create one new material, if they ever reach the desired material at all. 

To make the novel compounds predicted by the Materials Project, A-Lab’s AI created new recipes by combing through scientific papers and using active learning to make adjustments. Data from the Materials Project and GNoME were used to evaluate the materials’ predicted stability.

The Materials Project at Berkeley Lab gives researchers access to crucial information on diverse materials. This image shows the structures of 12 compounds in the Materials Project database. Credit: Jenny Nuss/Berkeley Lab

“We had this staggering 71% success rate, and we already have a few ways to improve it,” said Gerd Ceder, the principal investigator for A-Lab and a scientist at Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley. “We’ve shown that combining the theory and data side with automation has incredible results. We can make and test materials faster than ever before, and adding more data points to the Materials Project means we can make even smarter choices.” 

The Impact and Future of the Materials Project

The Materials Project is the most widely used open-access repository of information on inorganic materials in the world. The database holds millions of properties on hundreds of thousands of structures and molecules, information primarily processed at Berkeley Lab’s National Energy Research Science Computing Center. More than 400,000 people are registered as users of the site and, on average, more than four papers citing the Materials Project are published every day. The contribution from Google DeepMind is the biggest addition of structure-stability data from a group since the Materials Project began.

“We hope that the GNoME project will drive forward research into inorganic crystals,” said Ekin Dogus Cubuk, lead of Google DeepMind’s Materials Discovery team. “External researchers have already verified more than 736 of GNoME’s new materials through concurrent, independent physical experiments, demonstrating that our model’s discoveries can be realized in laboratories.”

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ez0w-retXso?feature=oembed
This one-minute timelapse shows how people around the world use the Materials Project over the course of four hours. The data dashboard shows a rolling one-hour window of worldwide Materials Project activity, including the number of requests, the country of users, and the most commonly queried material properties. Credit: Patrick Huck/Berkeley Lab

The Materials Project is now processing the compounds from Google DeepMind and adding them into the online database. The new data will be freely available to researchers, and also feed into projects such as A-Lab that partner with the Materials Project.

“I’m really excited that people are using the work we’ve done to produce an unprecedented amount of materials information,” said Persson, who is also the director of Berkeley Lab’s Molecular Foundry. “This is what I set out to do with the Materials Project: To not only make the data that I produced free and available to accelerate materials design for the world, but also to teach the world what computations can do for you. They can scan large spaces for new compounds and properties more efficiently and rapidly than experiments alone can.”

Many of the calculations for the Materials Project are performed on supercomputers at Berkeley Lab’s National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center. Credit: Thor Swift/Berkeley Lab

By following promising leads from data in the Materials Project over the past decade, researchers have experimentally confirmed useful properties in new materials across several areas. Some show potential for use:

  • in carbon capture (pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere)
  • as photocatalysts (materials that speed up chemical reactions in response to light and could be used to break down pollutants or generate hydrogen)
  • as thermoelectrics (materials that could help harness waste heat and turn it into electrical power)
  • as transparent conductors (which might be useful in solar cells, touch screens, or LEDs) 

Of course, finding these prospective materials is only one of many steps to solving some of humanity’s big technology challenges.

“Making a material is not for the faint of heart,” Persson said. “It takes a long time to take a material from computation to commercialization. It has to have the right properties, work within devices, be able to scale, and have the right cost efficiency and performance. The goal with the Materials Project and facilities like A-Lab is to harness data, enable data-driven exploration, and ultimately give companies more viable shots on goal.”

Google shapes everything on the web.


Google shapes everything on the web.

With huge amounts of traffic coming through the search engine, website operators will do anything to get noticed.

Site designs, organization, and even the subheadings on specific pages are crafted with Google in mind.

The changes start small, but they can quickly transform a website — until it’s optimized for Google first and readers last.

The Perfect Webpage

How the internet reshaped itself around Google’s search algorithms — and into a world where websites look the same.

Animations by Richard Parry

As the 14th season of Bravo’s Real Housewives of New York City came to a close this fall, I found myself on Reddit, reading rumors about the marriage and divorce timeline of one of the show’s stars. Redditors wanted more clues about a fishy relationship history to see if they could uncover a cheating scandal.

Were divorce papers public record in New York? I wondered. I did a quick Google search to find out.

The search results page was filled with my question’s exact words, repeated across site after site — websites for law firms, posts on forums, ads for creepy lookup tools — but the answer to my actual question was harder to find. At the top of the results page on my phone, Google offered two featured snippets of information quoting different websites. The first one: “Divorce records are not public in New York due to the sensitive nature of many divorce proceedings.” The second: “Due to the state’s underlying legislation regarding family law cases, each divorce is a matter of public record.

Google bolded both snippets, but it wasn’t clear to me how they squared. I clicked on both.

The two law firm websites were part of an ecosystem I didn’t know existed until I accidentally went looking for it. Law firms across different fields — family law, personal injury, employment lawyers — have blogs full of keyword-addled articles being churned out at a surprisingly fast clip. The goal for firms is simple: be the top result to pop up on Google when someone is looking for legal help. The searcher might just end up hiring them.

Many of these blog posts are written by people like E., a self-employed content writer who juggles law firm clients that want Google-friendly content. E. does not have a legal background; they’re just a competent writer who can turn in clean copy. They trawl health department records, looking for nursing homes that get citations for neglect or other infractions. Then E. writes a blog post about it for a firm, making sure to include the name of the offender and the wrongdoing — keywords for which concerned patients or families will likely be searching. (E. requested anonymity so as to not jeopardize their employment.)

“My bosses, they all don’t want anyone else to know that they use me or that we have the specific process that we have,” E. says. Their name is nowhere to be found, but their writing is often the first thing a searcher will see. The pages were made to be found by people like me.

Google controls around 90 percent of the search market, by some measures, so it’s too valuable a referral source to just leave up to luck. Search engine optimization — or SEO, the practice of tweaking content and websites to get Google to boost your visibility — is everywhere, including on the page you’re reading now. And once you see it or SEO-ify your own work, like E. has, it’s impossible not to notice.

Google’s outsized influence on how we find things has been 25 years in the making, and the people running businesses online have tried countless methods of getting Google to surface their content. Some business owners use generative AI to make Google-optimized blog posts so they can turn around and sell tchotchkes; brick-and-mortar businesses are picking funny names like “Thai Food Near Me” to try to game Google’s local search algorithm. An entire SEO industry has sprung up, dedicated to trying to understand (or outsmart) Google Search. 

The relentless optimizing of pages, words, paragraphs, photos, and hundreds of other variables has led to a wasteland of capital-C Content that is competing for increasingly dwindling Google Search real estate as generative AI rears its head. You’ve seen it before: the awkward subheadings and text that repeats the same phrases a dozen times, the articles that say nothing but which are sprayed with links that in turn direct you to other meaningless pages. Much of the information we find on the web — and much of what’s produced for the web in the first place — is designed to get Google’s attention.

We often hear about the latest engagement hacks on other platforms like Instagram, TikTok, or X, formerly known as Twitter. But Google is consequential above all of these, acting essentially as the referee of the web. Yet deep knowledge of how its systems work is largely limited to industry publications and marketing firms — as users, we don’t get an explanation of why sites suddenly look different or how Google ranks one website above another. It just happens.

Bit by bit, the internet has been remade in Google’s image. And it’s humans — not machines — who have to deal with the consequences.

Loading …

Description of this list

We just launched a hypothetical website dedicated to all things pet lizards. Now we need to make sure it works well — for readers and for Google’s search crawlers.

Google’s search guidelines encourage us to add alt text to images — an easy way to make our work more accessible to everyone.

But alt text doesn’t just describe a picture for humans — it also helps Google understand content and rank it in Google Images. Google’s needs are aligned with reader needs, which is a win-win.

There are other mutually beneficial optimizations. Google’s ranking system prioritizes speed, and the large images in our blog posts are slowing the site down. Let’s resize them using an optimization tool.

But other changes aren’t such easy win-wins. Google does better with site layouts it understands, so we’ll switch from using our custom design to a templated theme that promises to be good for SEO.

Our site has lost some of its personality, but it’s loading faster and has a design that’s friendlier to Google’s search crawlers. And this is just the start of our SEO effort.

1. Site performance and accessibility

There’s an inherent contradiction in what Google promises is the best way to succeed on Search. Publicly, Google representatives like search liaison Danny Sullivan give a simple, almost quaint answer to business owners who want help: you just need to make great content for people, not Google’s robots.

At the same time, Google’s “SEO Starter Guide” is nearly 9,000 words long with dozens of links to additional material. There are several SEO industry publications, plus an untold number of scrappy blogs, marketing firms, and self-proclaimed SEO gurus promising to demystify Google’s black box algorithm. Small business owners must either learn how to do SEO or hire someone — even multiple people or special firms — to do it for them. It’s expensive, time consuming, and often confusing work, and failure to learn the ropes could mean trouble if your traffic begins to tank unexpectedly. Google executives like Sullivan often respond to the folk wisdom of the SEO industry with a six-word incantation meant to absolve them of the industry’s worst practices: that’s not what the guidelines say. It can feel like the guidelines are there to protect Google’s reputation, not actually help anyone get search traffic.

Optimizing pages for Google isn’t inherently a bad thing. Google uses its influence over the web to push for objectively good results, like fast-loading sites and accessibility features like alt text on images, which can help audiences understand what’s on a page if an image doesn’t load or if readers use assistive technology like screen readers. Google’s Core Web Vitals metric pushes down sites with certain kinds of intrusive ads or which have slow-loading ads that cause content on the page to shift around.

“[Google’s changes] did sort of homogenize the design of the internet.”

Perhaps Google’s most benevolent push has been toward a fast, mobile-first web that has forced small and large publishers alike to overhaul their publishing platforms. But even that effort has come with collateral damage — see the entire news industry reluctantly embracing Google’s AMP format — or in the case of smaller blogs, a flattening and whitewashing of web design across the board.

Valerie Stimac Bailey, a professional blogger of a decade, remembers in 2021 when Google began using a new metric to rank sites, called “page experience,” that emphasized giving readers a “delightful” web to browse. Passing Google’s Core Web Vitals tests became all the more important — Google would look at load times, interactivity, and whether visual elements would move around unexpectedly. 

Bloggers like Stimac Bailey, along with an untold number of other site operators and web companies, saw the writing on the wall: Google might not like your old site, with its giant logos and custom fonts, or the ads that cause text to jump around. Companies like Mediavine, a popular ad-management company, released web design frameworks optimized for this new Google metric and Stimac Bailey, like many others, switched and redesigned her site. But she found the new theme “sterile,” she tells me, and it lacked customization options. It didn’t feel like part of her brand.

“I get that that probably was the impetus for a lot of people with really old, slow themes that were not handling mobile well to move to something that was faster for the world of the mobile-first indexing and internet,” Stimac Bailey says. “That was a good impact… but simultaneously, it did sort of homogenize the design of the internet.”

Stimac Bailey, who in the past published up to 11 blogs at a time, has experimented with different website themes. All eight of her current sites look nearly identical — her Alaska travel blog Valerie & Valise looks the same as Site School, a blog where she shares data-heavy analyses of how her portfolio of websites is performing. 

“People spent a lot of money, and a lot of time, and a lot of heartache and stress and psychology redesigning websites,” Stimac Bailey says.

Taking Google’s advice on creating good, fast, accessible websites sounds nice in theory; why not do what the search engine prefers and help your readers in the process? Creators I spoke to acknowledged that changes sometimes benefit Google and readers alike. But the line between what’s good for the search algorithm and what’s good for audiences has become blurry over time, and in some cases, the two are treated essentially as the same thing.

Loading …

Description of this list

We’re publishing blog posts every day on our site, and we now have over 100 high-quality lizard articles.

But we’ve noticed our competitors format their pieces differently: they chop their stories up into sections with headings that target Google searches.

Let’s try adding these headings ourselves. They make our story choppy and harder to read… but it signals to Google what our page is about.

One way to get more eyes on our site is to get into Google’s search highlights, like People Also Ask or Featured Snippets.
Let’s use popular Google searches as our subheadings — “What is a lizard’s favorite food?” “What is lizard skin made of?”

Along with the subheads, we’ll add a table of contents to the top of articles so each section becomes a link that can drive traffic on its own.

Our website is starting to look even more like everything else on the web — especially on phones, where logos are resized, menus are compressed, and text is one long and narrow column.

Our blog is now one of millions similarly-optimized sources of content competing for Google’s clicks.

2. Page design and structure of articles

The small, behind-the-scenes changes site operators deployed over the years have made browsing the web — especially on mobile — more frictionless and enjoyable. But Google’s preferences and systems don’t just guide how sites run: Search has also influenced how information looks and how audiences experience the internet. The project of optimizing your digital existence for Google doesn’t stop at page design. The content has to conform, too.

Take, for example, the question-based subheadings that are rampant on pages ranging from personal finance explainers to travel tips to annual event reminders. Sections like “When should I make IRA contributions?” or “What states are getting rid of Daylight Savings time?” will cascade down a page, presumably to help a reader scan for information. But subheadings are also a piece of information Google uses to understand what a page is about and to rank it in Search. Historically, subheadings have been an easy, fast way to juice content for maximum visibility.

Some bloggers and outlets scrape the “People Also Ask” panel on search results pages for ideas: the Google-curated section spits out strangely worded or oddly specific questions like, “What is the healthiest vegetable 2023?” and “What two vegetables can be eaten raw?”

Sean Bromilow, a food writer based in Canada, has reformatted his blog posts in hopes that Google will pick up his content for placement in these fields. On a page for cucamelons, he added an FAQ section featuring questions like, “How do you eat cucamelons?” and “Are cucamelons a GMO?”

“I did that in direct response to Google’s [People Also Ask questions] that they introduced,” he says.

Some creators scrape the “People Also Ask” panel for story ideas

A Q&A format might often be the most effective way to write a story or share information — I’ve done stories in this format, too. But other times, question-based subheadings are harder to read, repeating the same phrases without adding anything substantial. Browse this article about gua sha, a massaging technique with roots in traditional Chinese medicine, and you’ll find headings including, “What is a gua sha,” “What are the benefits of a gua sha,” “How to find your gua sha,” and “How to use your gua sha.”

A table of contents, too, has become a common sight, appearing at the top of articles. On a post about animals to look out for in Alaska, for example, Stimac Bailey has 10 sections in the table of contents, each linking to the corresponding part of the blog post. Having a linked table of contents allows readers to skip to the part they most want to read, like if someone is strictly interested in seeing caribou.

But the table of contents sections also work as jump links on Google Search that appear below the headline and other metadata. Stimac Bailey gets a reasonable amount of traffic to her Pacific Coast Highway guide, not from searchers clicking the title but through people clicking on one of the jump links below. Some SEO strategists even debate whether bloggers should leave their table of contents expanded or collapsed for maximum SEO juice. Stimac Bailey keeps hers collapsed but recently heard from a person selling SEO services that your table of contents should be auto-expanded.

“At a certain point, I don’t care if it costs me time on site or it costs me ad views or costs me bounce rate or whatever it might be,” she says. “I like my site to look the way I want it to look, so that’s what I’m going to do.”

But many websites just do what they think Google wants or what’s being recommended by SEO experts, even if there’s no guarantee it will work. Google is both overbearing with manuals and withholding of clear answers. Give too much away, and everyone could game the system. In that void, creators and website operators throw things at the wall to see what sticks. And once they start designing their page for Google, it’s easy for their content to be fashioned for Google, too.

oading …

Description of this list

We have a site full of high-quality lizard content, yet our blog hasn’t gotten much traction. “Pet lizards” is a topic people are searching for, but they aren’t finding our site.

Maybe we aren’t publishing the right kind of blog posts. We can look up what keywords people are searching for and tailor our content to target those terms.

We use an SEO tool to grade our writing and edit it accordingly, sprinkling in our target keywords and optimizing everything from the headline to the URL.

Keywords with the right combination of volume and ranking difficulty become our bread and butter. Pretty soon, all our blog posts are focused on these “gettable” searches. We now have a Content Strategy.

Our shiny new Content Strategy is designed to pull in readers from search so they can be monetized through affiliate links, display ads, and clicks to other articles.

Our website is now optimized to supply content to Google, not build an audience of its own. It’s not the writing we set out to do, but at least we’re getting visitors.

3. Keyword research and what content is made

For publishers handcuffed to Google Search traffic, there’s often no reason to produce content if people aren’t searching for it. So marketers, writers, and bloggers use a suite of keyword research tools to assess whether there’s enough interest to write the article or make the video in the first place. The result is that publishers end up producing a mountain of material, with Google keywords essentially acting like the assigning editor.

When Stimac Bailey writes for her London travel blog, for example, she strategically picks topics that the site will be able to rank highly for — keywords and topics that are too competitive get put on the backburner.

“[My writers and I] work on picking topics together, but we need them to be productive because not only am I [monetizing them], I’m paying people for their work, and I’m trying to pay very fairly for that work,” she says. “It’s like, ‘I gotta find these low-competition, high-volume, magic keywords.” For a popular destination like London, those magic keywords don’t really exist.

Catherine Cusick understands this tension well. Cusick worked in media for years — including in SEO — before creating the Self-Employed FAQ in March. The subscription-driven business acts as a help guide for people who are new to self-employment or who simply have a specific question they can’t get an answer to elsewhere. 

Most of Cusick’s answers to queries like “Do I need an accountant?” or “What are my healthcare options?” are behind a paywall, so she curates a small number of unlocked articles meant to give prospective customers a sampling of what she offers. These are what Cusick calls “SEO plays.”

For these articles, she is only targeting long-tail keywords — lengthier search terms that are often more specific and, as a result, have fewer people searching for them and are less competitive.

“The keyword search term that I am going for is, ‘How to pay yourself from a single member LLC.’ My game is entirely long-tail keywords,” she says. “I’m not even competing with ‘How to pay myself LLC.’ Like, that’s too high of a term for me, let alone something like ‘LLC.’”

Cusick wrestles with the disconnect between who her business is for — scared, uncertain people trying to make a living — and the SEO requirements she needs to fulfill. Time strategizing and reading technical manuals can feel like time “stolen” from making in-person connections and writing paywalled articles meant to help people through self-employment.

“I will need to have a different page for humans, and then another page that’s more of a directory that points humans who’ve arrived to the directory to other pages that will tell them a story,” she says. “The directory page can be structured in a way that makes search engine crawlers satisfied.” In Cusick’s view, we’re asking one piece of content to do too much: fulfill all the SEO requirements and dothe careful, uninterrupted work of getting real answers to a reader.

I rewrote my prose over and over, but it didn’t seem to satisfy my robot grader

In an emailed statement, Google spokesperson Jennifer Kutz offered a dozen links to public documentation around search, along with generalities about keeping content “helpful” and “relevant.” All points underscored the company’s most common refrain: make content for human audiences.

“We’ve given longstanding guidance to create content that’s first and foremost helpful, and we work very hard to ensure that our ranking systems reward content designed for people first. Many sites perform well on Search simply by creating this helpful content, without undertaking extensive SEO efforts,” Kutz tells The Verge. “We continuously refine our ranking systems, and where we identify areas we can improve in ranking people-first content, we prioritize them. For more than a year, we’ve had focused efforts to show more content based on first-hand experience in Search, and to reduce content created solely for search engines, and this work continues.”

Kutz did not comment on my questions around specific strategies outlined in this piece, saying that giving granular guidance might make creators “lose sight” of the people-first guidance put forth by Google. Instead, the advice is for website operators to “ask themselves if [a tactic] would be helpful for someone visiting their site.”

But in order to be helpful to readers, website operators need people to visit their site in the first place. Fine-tuning content to match exact search terms is a common strategy that can entice users to click on a page that looks like it will answer their question. That doesn’t guarantee content will be better or even good — and sometimes, how users search can create an echo chamber of errors, oft-repeated misinformation, or poorly researched content.

One instance of errors multiplying sticks out to Bromilow, the food writer. For a while, he says that Google was returning a litany of incorrect information about Ethiopian cardamom, or korarima. Though black cardamom and korarima look similar, their flavors are not. Websites and writers — and by extension, Google results — were confusing the ingredients. At one point, Bromilow says the first picture on Google Images was of the wrong plant. 

“If people are searching the wrong thing because that’s what they’ve been given, how do you return a result to them that explains that they’re incorrect, while also being found by them?” Bromilow says. “You don’t want to reinforce the mistake, right? It’s really weird and complicated.”

That Ethiopian recipes are being translated from Amharic to English also brings a host of problems: how should Bromilow spell the names of dishes? Should he use whatever spelling people are searching for the most? A post on savory pancakes sums it up, in which the Canadian Bromilow explains why he’s opted to omit the “u” in savoury: “The choice, while it breaks my maple-syrup filled heart, is obvious — savory is searched for more often, and using that spelling is more likely to [get] a recipe noticed by the all-powerful and oft-mysterious search engine algorithms.”

To understand what pure SEO-optimized writing looks like, I put my recent story about Google-optimized local businesses through an SEO tool called Semrush that’s reportedly used by 10 million people. 

Among its suggestions: write a longer headline; split a six-sentence paragraph up because it’s “too long”; and replace “too complex” words like “invariably,” “notoriety,” and “modification.” Dozens of sentences were flagged as being confusing (I disagree) — and it really hated em dashes. I rewrote my prose over and over, but it didn’t seem to satisfy my robot grader. I finally chose one thought per sentence, broke up paragraphs, and replaced words with suggested keywords to get rid of the red dots signaling problems. 

The result feels like an AI summary of my story — at any moment, a paragraph could start with “In conclusion…” or “The next thing to consider is…” The nuance, voice, and unexpected twists and turns have been snuffed out. I’m sure some people would prefer this uncomplicated, beat-by-beat version of the story, but it’s gone from being a story written by a real person to a clinical, stiff series of sentences.

Now imagine thousands of website operators all using this same plug-in to rewrite content. No wonder people feel like the answers are increasingly robotic and say nothing.

Loading …

Description of this list

We have to prove to Google that we know what we’re talking about when it comes to pet lizards. Let’s add bylines and author pictures to every post, plus a sentence about why we’re qualified to write about the topic.

And just to go the extra mile, let’s also add a blurb on every article about why you should trust our work.

We’re not just passionate about pet lizards, we also own 20 of them. We want to show Google our experience, so we add a bunch of pictures of us with our reptiles.

We’re also adding significantly more professional background details. We’re going to round up how long we’ve been writing about reptiles — it’s mostly true. Can Google even tell?

We’re not sure if readers even bother to check out our credentials — but we know Google does.

4.  Building “trust,” Google’s way

If you’re a regular reader of The Verge, you might have noticed some changes to our author bylines in recent months: they’re a lot longer, with more details, name-dropping, and quantifying our professional experiences. You can thank Google for that.

In December 2022, Google updated the metrics it uses to assess the quality of the content it serves up to searchers. Previously, the company looked for expertise, authority, and trust in webpages — now, the company said it would tack on experience to the rating system. In SEO parlance, it’s called E-E-A-T. 

Demonstratingexperience by Google’s standards is supposed to show audiences that the person producing the content has participated in the topic matter in some way. If they’re writing about hairdryers, one way to show experience might be a reviewer mentioning how they’ve tested different products themselves. If someone is recommending a restaurant, they could indicate they dined there. The emphasis on experience and trust is in response to issues that, in some ways, are Google’s own creation — on Search, anyone can profit from clicks, including websites spewing disinformation.  

It’s easy to notice these attempts to prove “experience” in the wild: on CNET, author bios have very literal subheadings like “expertise” and “credentials.” Earlier this year, The New York Times began adding enhanced bylines to some stories. A recent investigation into Kanye West’s business deals with Adidas reads, “For this article, Megan Twohey traveled to Portland, Ore., and Los Angeles; interviewed current and former employees of Adidas and of Kanye West; and obtained hundreds of previously undisclosed internal records.” The Times told Nieman Lab the change wasn’t prompted by Google’s policy update, but it’s just the kind of sign of trustworthiness Google likes.

The problem, of course, is that anyone can write up an author bio promising years of expertise — and writing that you’re an expert doesn’t make it true. In November, Sports Illustrated was caught publishing articles attributed to AI-generated authors, complete with specific biographical information and what they like to do in their free time.

The problem is that anyone can write up a bio promising years of expertise

For reputable news outlets, the challenge of producing work that Google likes and that meets high-quality standards is magnified; you can’t fill articles with SEO-bait keywords without readers noticing. Shelby Blackley, SEO editor at The Athletic, emphasizes that her work’s goal is to get reporters’ stories in front of readers without sacrificing the integrity of the journalism for Google’s algorithms.

“The philosophy that I’ve always had is the journalism comes first. And regardless of what we try to do from a search perspective, or what Google wants, [that] is always going to be after the journalism,” Blackley tells The Verge.

Blackley co-writes the popular WTF is SEO? newsletter with Jessie Willms, SEO editor at The Guardian. WTF is SEO? is a guide for newsroom SEO editors and audience experts who want to make sure content will reach Google users, but not at the expense of the reporting. Until recently, there were few SEO resources for people in roles like theirs, Willms says.

Showing Google that an author has experience in the topic will look different depending on the type of journalism, says Willms. An investigative team might create an accompanying explainer detailing how they went about requesting records, finding sources, and fact-checking their story; a laptop reviewer, meanwhile, might publish a piece explaining how they assess and test products, so readers know they can trust their reviews.

But even as publications double down to try to prove their experience, and AI-generated synthetic content floods platforms, Google is increasingly trusting and elevating individuals — and sometimes anonymous users. Earlier this summer, some in the SEO industry noticed that Reddit’s visibility on Google was skyrocketing, and Google later revealed it had deployed a “hidden gems” algorithm to surface content from forums or blogs. It’s as if Google saw the discourse about adding “reddit” to the end of search queries and decided to systematize it. Google is also increasingly elevating user-generated content in Search through a “Perspectives” filter that features content from TikTok and other platforms. 

The sleazier SEO strategists have already caught on, waiting and hoping for their chance to exploit whatever Google prioritizes. There are product recommendation articles with titles like “Best Espresso Machine Reddit 2023” and entire websites filled with reviews “according to Reddit” that appear to be fake accounts talking to each other. Some subreddits are overrun with affiliate link spam.

The problem with setting up an ever-scaling system of winners and losers is that someone will always try to cheat and, at least for a bit, they’ll get away with it.

Loading …

Description of this list

Our lizard blog doesn’t look much like what we started out with, but it probably resembles hundreds of sites you’ve seen before.

Often, Google doesn’t explicitly tell creators to make these changes — but its ranking systems incentivize it all the same.

It’s hard to overstate how important Google traffic has become for publishers.
These incentives are how we’ve ended up with a web full of content farms instead of diverse and interesting sites.

The rise of AI-powered content farms and other platforms like TikTok could destabilize this entire ecosystem. Users and creators are beginning to look elsewhere to find information as the web gets more and more polluted.

As the tides begin to turn, could our deep reliance on Google change, too?

5. Generative AI and the future of Search

Earlier this year, Google unveiled what could become the biggest shift in how people find information online since the advent of Search: results generated using artificial intelligence.

When users opt in to Search Generative Experience (SGE), Google puts AI content front and center, spitting out AI answers and placing them above organic search results. Google has experimented with how to cite sources its AI tool is pulling from, but SGE takes up valuable real estate on the results page, pushing down standard links and potentially killing publishers’ traffic. Why keep scrolling if you can find an answer to your cooking question right at the top of the page?

SEO experts are already thinking about how AI search might change the content they produce. Publishers could double down on creating content in categories that Google won’t include in SGE, for example, like health, finance, or others where the risk of getting it wrong could have negative consequences. Google calls those categories Your Money or Your Life and says SGE, like Search, requires a higher bar for ranking in these areas. Publishers have a way to block Google from training its chatbot, Bard, on their work, but there’s currently no way to opt out of SGE without also disappearing from Search — a death sentence for most outlets.

Some bloggers are also strategizing for the coming AI wave and its potential for destabilizing their business. Zhen Zhou, who runs the cooking blog Greedy Girl Gourmet, recently started a second site focused on traveling in Asia with elderly relatives, believing it’s a niche that is relatively untapped on Google. The hope is that the travel blog and its contents will fare better in the face of generative AI search results than Asian cooking will.

“Maybe after a while the AI will trawl the internet enough to give you just as good recommendations, but at least I think there’s slightly more longevity there,” Zhou says.

“I have zero desire to satisfy a checklist for generative AI.”

But others, like Cusick, are pulling back. Instead of pivoting to write for whatever role generative AI will play in search, Cusick says she is doubling down on the tactics that work for her, which are often one-to-one, intimate interactions with potential customers.

“I have zero desire to satisfy a checklist for generative AI or suddenly change tactics in a way that doesn’t align with my values,” she says. These days, outside of Search, Cusick has found success through in-person speaking events or private Discord communities — instead of hitching her wagon to Google and its algorithm, these avenues feel more sustainable.

Though Google has maintained a monopoly on search for years, there are signs that could be changing. The US v. Google antitrust case hinges on Search, its biggest and most ubiquitous product. Other platforms like TikTok are increasingly being used by young people as a search engine, and the video platform has been testing a partnership with Google to insert search queries into TikTok results pages. 

Publishers are already strategizing how their content will need to change as the impending generative AI takeover looms closer. But chasing algorithms has never worked out for the media industry, and increasingly, it looks like this era of search online is waning.

SEO experts like Willms and Blackley are thinking in the long term about how to reliably reach their audiences. Algorithms — and the platforms themselves — ebb and flow; what sticks around is the audience base who comes straight to you.

The habit of prioritizing Google is hard to break — it’s quite impossible to ignore the biggest search company in the world. And though 25 years of living in Google’s world feels eternal, it’s also a drop in the bucket. If Google knows anything, it’s that a young upstart can come along and change everything.

But no matter what happens with Search, there’s already a splintering: a web full of cheap, low-effort content and a whole world of human-first art, entertainment, and information that lives behind paywalls, in private chat rooms, and on websites that are working toward a more sustainable model. As with young people using TikTok for search, or the practice of adding “reddit” to search queries, users are signaling they want a different way to find things and feel no particular loyalty to Google.

It’s all but certain that a new era of content relentlessly optimized for AI search engines is bound to result in the same kinds of problems we have today. And with that realization, there is a chance at another way forward, without the almost religious dependence on Google; searching and creating for a vacillating overlord feels increasingly futile. And when the creators and searchers leave the web for good, Google will have nobody to blame but itself.

Watch “Google Introducing New AI – VideoPoet: The Future of AI in Multimedia” on YouTube


Google Visual Positioning System


Is it true? Google techie claims AI chatbot can think like a human being, gets placed on leave.


https://www.wionews.com/technology/is-it-true-google-techie-claims-ai-chatbot-can-think-like-a-human-being-gets-placed-on-leave-487709

Google Is Using Radar to Help Computers Read and React to Your Body Language


Technology has quickly infiltrated almost every aspect of our lives, but the way we interface with our devices is still less than ideal. From hunching over our computer screens (because if you’re anything like me, it’s pretty much impossible to maintain good posture for more than a few minutes at a time) to constantly looking down at our phones (often while walking, driving, or otherwise being in motion), the way our bodies and brains interact with technology is not exactly seamless. Just how seamless we want it to become is debatable, but a Google project is exploring those boundaries.

Google’s Advanced Technology and Projects lab—ATAP—focuses on developing hardware to “change the way we relate to technology.” Its Project Jacquard developed conductive yarn to weave into clothing so people could interact with devices by, say, tapping their forearms—sort of like an elementary, fabric-based version of the Apple watch. The lab has also been working on a project called Soli, which uses radar to give computers spatial awareness, enabling them to interact with people non-verbally.

In other words, the project is trying to allow computers to recognize and respond to physical cues from their users, not unlike how we take in and respond to body language. “We are inspired by how people interact with one another,” said Leonardo Giusti, ATAP’s Head of Design. “As humans, we understand each other intuitively, without saying a single word. We pick up on social cues, subtle gestures that we innately understand and react to. What if computers understood us this way?”

Examples include a computer automatically powering up when you get within a certain distance of it or pausing a video when you look away from the screen.

The sensor works by sending out electromagnetic waves in a broad beam, which are intercepted and reflected back to the radar antenna by objects—or people—in their path. The reflected waves are analyzed for properties like energy, time delay, and frequency shift, which give clues about the reflector’s size, shape, and distance from the sensor. Parsing the data even further using a machine learning algorithm enables the sensor to determine things like an object’s orientation, its distance from the device, and the speed of its movements.

The ATAP team helped train Soli’s algorithm themselves by doing a series of movements while being tracked by cameras and radar sensors. The movements they focused on were ones typically involved in interacting with digital devices, like turning toward or away from a screen, approaching or leaving a space or device, glancing at a screen, etc. The ultimate goal is for the sensor to be able to anticipate a user’s next move and serve up a corresponding response, facilitating the human-device interaction by enabling devices to “understand the social context around them,” as ATAP’s Human-Computer Interaction Lead Eiji Hayashi put it.

Improving the way we interact with our now-ubiquitous devices isn’t a new idea. Jody Medich, principal design researcher at Microsoft and CEO of Superhuman-X, has long been advocating for what she calls human-centered technology, maintaining that our interfaces “are killing our ability to think” by overloading our working memory (which is short-term and task-based) with constant interruptions.

In 2017 Medich predicted the rise of perceptual computing, in which machines recognize what’s happening around them and act accordingly. “This will cause the dematerialization curve to dramatically accelerate while we use technology in even more unexpected locations,” she wrote. “This means technology will be everywhere, and so will interface.”

It seems she wasn’t wrong, but this begs a couple of important questions.

First, do we really need our computers to “understand” and respond to our movements and gestures? Is this a necessary tweak to how we use technology, or a new apex of human laziness? Pressing pause on a video before getting up to walk away takes a split second, as does pressing the power button to turn a device on or off. And what about those times we want the computer to stay on or the video to keep playing even when we’re not right in front of the screen?

Secondly, what might the privacy implications of these sensor-laden devices be? The ATAP team emphasizes that Soli uses radar precisely because it protects users’ privacy far more than, say, cameras; radar can’t distinguish between different peoples’ faces or bodies, it can just tell that there’s a person in its space. Also, data from the Soli sensor in Google’s Nest Hub doesn’t get sent to the cloud, it’s only processed locally on users’ devices, and the assumption is that a product made for laptops or other devices would function the same way.

People may initially be creeped out by their devices being able to anticipate and respond to their movements. Like most other technology we initially find off-putting for privacy reasons, though, it seems we ultimately end up valuing the convenience these products give us more than we value our privacy; it all comes down to utilitarianism.

Whether or not we want our devices to eventually become more like extensions of our bodies, it’s likely the technology will move in that direction. Analyses from 2019 through this year estimate we check our phones anywhere from 96 to 344 times per day. That’s a lot of times, and a lot of interrupting what we’re doing to look at these tiny screens that now essentially run our lives.

Is there a better way? Hopefully. Is this it? TBD.

This is How Google will Collapse


Reporting from the very near, post-Google future

Google made almost all its money from ads. It was a booming business — until it wasn’t. Here’s how things looked right before the most spectacular crash the technology industry had ever seen.

The crumbling of Google’s cornerstone

Search was Google’s only unambiguous win, as well as its primary source of revenue, so when Amazon rapidly surpassed Google as the top product search destination, Google’s foundations began to falter. As many noted at the time, the online advertising industry experienced a major shift from search to discovery in the mid-2010s.

While Google protected its monopoly on the dying search advertising market, Facebook — Google’s biggest competitor in the online advertising space — got on the right side of the trend and dominated online advertising with its in-feed native display advertising.

The people who turned to Amazon over Google? The 18–29 crowd led the way.

In late 2015, Apple — Google’s main competitor in the mobile space — added a feature to their phones and tablets that allowed users to block ads.

Devices running iOS were responsible for an estimated 75% of Google’s revenue from mobile search ads, so by making this move, Apple was simultaneously weighing in decisively on the great ad blocking debate of the 2010s and dealing a substantial blow to the future of online advertising.

The rising number of users blocking ads on mobile showed no signs of slowing down

A year later, as the internet went mobile, so too did ad blocking. The number of people blocking ads on a mobile device grew 102% from 2015 to 2016; by the end of 2016, an estimated 16% of smartphone users globally were blocking ads when browsing the internet on a mobile device. The number was as high as 25% for desktop and laptop users in the United States, a country that accounted for 47% of Google’s revenue.

The people most likely to block ads were also the most valuable demographic: millennials and high earners.

Young users are a good indicator for the future of technology, and they were heavy users of ad blocking software

Internet users had spoken, and they hated ads.

In early 2017, Google announced its plans to build an ad blocker into its popular Google Chrome browser. Google’s ad blocker would only block ads that were deemed unacceptable by the Coalition For Better Ads, effectively allowing the company to use its dominant web browser to strengthen its already dominant advertising business.

Even after making this desperate and legally questionable move, it would quickly become clear to Google that even though ads were getting better, ad blocking numbers would continue to rise. Google had given even more people a small taste of what an ad-free internet experience could look like.

The company discovered that it wasn’t just annoying ads that people didn’t like; it was ads in general.

The advertising industry trying to figure out why people hated ads so much

A key platform where Google served ads was YouTube, which it bought in 2006 and quickly turned into one of its biggest entities. But even with a sixth of the world visiting this video-sharing behemoth every month, YouTube never became profitable. In an attempt to combat the effect of ad blockers, YouTube launched an ad-free subscription model in late 2015, but the subscription numbers were underwhelming.

YouTube’s already insurmountable problems multiplied in early 2017 as advertisers began to pull out amid ad placement controversies, and huge revenue generators began to leave the site.

Even those who weren’t blocking ads had trained themselves to ignore them entirely. Researchers dubbed this phenomenon “banner blindness”. The average banner ad was clicked on by a dismal 0.06% of viewers, and of those clicks, roughly 50% were accidental.

Research showed that 54% of users reported a lack of trust as their reason for not clicking banner ads and 33% found them completely intolerable. These figures painted a pretty grim picture for the sustainability of online advertising, but especially for Google’s position within the industry.

Google’s mighty engine had started to sputter.

A chance to pivot, and how Google missed it

If losing a major portion of their audience and annoying the rest wasn’t bad enough, Google also failed to get ahead of one of the biggest shifts in technology’s history. They recognized the importance of artificial intelligence but their approach missed the mark. Since Google’s search pillar had become unstable, a lot was riding on the company’s strategy for artificial intelligence.

“We will move from mobile first to an AI first world.”

Google’s then-CEO Sundar Pichai famously predicted in 2016 that “the next big step will be for the very concept of the ‘device’ to fade away” and that “over time, the computer itself — whatever its form factor — will be an intelligent assistant helping you through your day. We will move from mobile first to an AI first world.”

Google’s ability to acknowledge the coming trend and still fail to land in front of it reminded many observers of its catastrophic failures in the booming industries of social media and instant messaging.

Sundar Pichai wondering how to monetize a virtual assistant

Google vs. Amazon

Meanwhile, in 2014, Amazon released a product called Amazon Echo, a small speaker that could sit in your home and answer questions, perform tasks, and buy things online for you. The Echo was a smash success. Google released its copycat product, Google Home, two years later, but it was already too late to catch up, and had no clear revenue strategy.

Alexa — the assistant that lived inside the Echo — on the other hand, was quickly integrated into several products and services, and its monetization model was clear, viable, and most importantly future-friendly. The Echo made it easy to order products through Amazon, and every time someone used an Echo to purchase something, Amazon made money.

Google extended the reach of their virtual assistant by building it into Android, but doing so still didn’t provide an answer for how the technology would generate enough revenue to sustain Google’s expanding repertoire of expensive innovations.

Google’s ads relied on screens, yet voice interaction subverted screens entirely. Google briefly tried playing audio ads with the Google Home, but consumers were far from receptive. Investors started to voice their concerns in 2017, but Sundar Pichai told them not to worry, leaving them to assume that Google would use their age-old strategy and analyze users’ voice searches so that users could be shown more suitable ads on devices with screens.

Alexa celebrating its victory over Google

Headlines in early 2017 proclaimed that “Alexa Just Conquered CES. The World is Next.” Amazon then made their technology available to third party manufacturers, putting even more distance between the two companies. Amazon had already beaten Google once before, holding 54% of the cloud computing market (compared to Google’s 3%) in 2016, and they were just getting started.

By early 2017, Amazon had begun closing in on the entire retail industry.

Ads weren’t forever

At its peak, Google had a massive and loyal user-base across a staggering number of products, but advertising revenue was the glue that held everything together. As the numbers waned, Google’s core began to buckle under the weight of its vast empire.

Google was a driving force in the technology industry ever since its disruptive entry in 1998. But in a world where people despised ads, Google’s business model was not innovation-friendly, and they missed several opportunities to pivot, ultimately rendering their numerous grand and ambitious projects unsustainable. Innovation costs money, and Google’s main stream of revenue had started to dry up.

In a few short years, Google had gone from a fun, commonplace verb to a reminder of how quickly a giant can fall.

How Technology is Hijacking Your Mind — from a Magician and Google Design Ethicist


“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.” — Unknown.

I’m an expert on how technology hijacks our psychological vulnerabilities. That’s why I spent the last three years as a Design Ethicist at Google caring about how to design things in a way that defends a billion people’s minds from getting hijacked.

When using technology, we often focus optimistically on all the things it does for us. But I want to show you where it might do the opposite.

Where does technology exploit our minds’ weaknesses?

I learned to think this way when I was a magician. Magicians start by looking for blind spots, edges, vulnerabilities and limits of people’s perception, so they can influence what people do without them even realizing it. Once you know how to push people’s buttons, you can play them like a piano.

That’s me performing sleight of hand magic at my mother’s birthday party

And this is exactly what product designers do to your mind. They play your psychological vulnerabilities (consciously and unconsciously) against you in the race to grab your attention.

I want to show you how they do it.

Hijack #1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices

Western Culture is built around ideals of individual choice and freedom. Millions of us fiercely defend our right to make “free” choices, while we ignore how those choices are manipulated upstream by menus we didn’t choose in the first place.

This is exactly what magicians do. They give people the illusion of free choice while architecting the menu so that they win, no matter what you choose. I can’t emphasize enough how deep this insight is.

When people are given a menu of choices, they rarely ask:

  • “what’s not on the menu?”
  • “why am I being given these options and not others?”
  • “do I know the menu provider’s goals?”
  • “is this menu empowering for my original need, or are the choices actually a distraction?” (e.g. an overwhelmingly array of toothpastes)
How empowering is this menu of choices for the need, “I ran out of toothpaste”?

For example, imagine you’re out with friends on a Tuesday night and want to keep the conversation going. You open Yelp to find nearby recommendations and see a list of bars. The group turns into a huddle of faces staring down at their phones comparing bars. They scrutinize the photos of each, comparing cocktail drinks. Is this menu still relevant to the original desire of the group?

It’s not that bars aren’t a good choice, it’s that Yelp substituted the group’s original question (“where can we go to keep talking?”) with a different question (“what’s a bar with good photos of cocktails?”) all by shaping the menu.

Moreover, the group falls for the illusion that Yelp’s menu represents a complete set of choices for where to go. While looking down at their phones, they don’t see the park across the street with a band playing live music. They miss the pop-up gallery on the other side of the street serving crepes and coffee. Neither of those show up on Yelp’s menu.

Yelp subtly reframes the group’s need “where can we go to keep talking?” in terms of photos of cocktails served.

The more choices technology gives us in nearly every domain of our lives (information, events, places to go, friends, dating, jobs) — the more we assume that our phone is always the most empowering and useful menu to pick from. Is it?

The “most empowering” menu is different than the menu that has the most choices. But when we blindly surrender to the menus we’re given, it’s easy to lose track of the difference:

  • “Who’s free tonight to hang out?” becomes a menu of most recent people who texted us (who we could ping).
  • “What’s happening in the world?” becomes a menu of news feed stories.
  • “Who’s single to go on a date?” becomes a menu of faces to swipe on Tinder (instead of local events with friends, or urban adventures nearby).
  • “I have to respond to this email.” becomes a menu of keys to type a response (instead of empowering ways to communicate with a person).
All user interfaces are menus. What if your email client gave you empowering choices of ways to respond, instead of “what message do you want to type back?” (Design by Tristan Harris)

When we wake up in the morning and turn our phone over to see a list of notifications — it frames the experience of “waking up in the morning” around a menu of “all the things I’ve missed since yesterday.” (for more examples, see Joe Edelman’s Empowering Design talk)

A list of notifications when we wake up in the morning — how empowering is this menu of choices when we wake up? Does it reflect what we care about? (from Joe Edelman’s Empowering Design Talk)

By shaping the menus we pick from, technology hijacks the way we perceive our choices and replaces them with new ones. But the closer we pay attention to the options we’re given, the more we’ll notice when they don’t actually align with our true needs.

Hijack #2: Put a Slot Machine In a Billion Pockets

If you’re an app, how do you keep people hooked? Turn yourself into a slot machine.

The average person checks their phone 150 times a day. Why do we do this? Are we making 150 conscious choices?

How often do you check your email per day?

One major reason why is the #1 psychological ingredient in slot machines: intermittent variable rewards.

If you want to maximize addictiveness, all tech designers need to do is link a user’s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward. You pull a lever and immediately receive either an enticing reward (a match, a prize!) or nothing. Addictiveness is maximized when the rate of reward is most variable.

Does this effect really work on people? Yes. Slot machines make more money in the United States than baseball, movies, and theme parks combined. Relative to other kinds of gambling, people get ‘problematically involved’ with slot machines 3–4x faster according to NYU professor Natasha Dow Schull, author of Addiction by Design.

Image courtesy of Jopwell

But here’s the unfortunate truth — several billion people have a slot machine their pocket:

  • When we pull our phone out of our pocket, we’re playing a slot machine to see what notifications we got.
  • When we pull to refresh our email, we’re playing a slot machine to see what new email we got.
  • When we swipe down our finger to scroll the Instagram feed, we’re playing a slot machine to see what photo comes next.
  • When we swipe faces left/right on dating apps like Tinder, we’re playing a slot machine to see if we got a match.
  • When we tap the # of red notifications, we’re playing a slot machine to what’s underneath.

Apps and websites sprinkle intermittent variable rewards all over their products because it’s good for business.

But in other cases, slot machines emerge by accident. For example, there is no malicious corporation behind all of email who consciously chose to make it a slot machine. No one profits when millions check their email and nothing’s there. Neither did Apple and Google’s designers want phones to work like slot machines. It emerged by accident.

But now companies like Apple and Google have a responsibility to reduce these effects by converting intermittent variable rewards into less addictive, more predictable ones with better design. For example, they could empower people to set predictable times during the day or week for when they want to check “slot machine” apps, and correspondingly adjust when new messages are delivered to align with those times.

Hijack #3: Fear of Missing Something Important (FOMSI)

Another way apps and websites hijack people’s minds is by inducing a “1% chance you could be missing something important.”

If I convince you that I’m a channel for important information, messages, friendships, or potential sexual opportunities — it will be hard for you to turn me off, unsubscribe, or remove your account — because (aha, I win) you might miss something important:

  • This keeps us subscribed to newsletters even after they haven’t delivered recent benefits (“what if I miss a future announcement?”)
  • This keeps us “friended” to people with whom we haven’t spoke in ages (“what if I miss something important from them?”)
  • This keeps us swiping faces on dating apps, even when we haven’t even met up with anyone in a while (“what if I miss that one hot match who likes me?”)
  • This keeps us using social media (“what if I miss that important news story or fall behind what my friends are talking about?”)

But if we zoom into that fear, we’ll discover that it’s unbounded: we’ll always miss something important at any point when we stop using something.

  • There are magic moments on Facebook we’ll miss by not using it for the 6th hour (e.g. an old friend who’s visiting town right now).
  • There are magic moments we’ll miss on Tinder (e.g. our dream romantic partner) by not swiping our 700th match.
  • There are emergency phone calls we’ll miss if we’re not connected 24/7.

But living moment to moment with the fear of missing something isn’t how we’re built to live.

And it’s amazing how quickly, once we let go of that fear, we wake up from the illusion. When we unplug for more than a day, unsubscribe from those notifications, or go to Camp Grounded — the concerns we thought we’d have don’t actually happen.

We don’t miss what we don’t see.

The thought, “what if I miss something important?” is generated in advance of unplugging, unsubscribing, or turning off — not after. Imagine if tech companies recognized that, and helped us proactively tune our relationships with friends and businesses in terms of what we define as “time well spent” for our lives, instead of in terms of what we might miss.

Hijack #4: Social Approval

Easily one of the most persuasive things a human being can receive.

We’re all vulnerable to social approval. The need to belong, to be approved or appreciated by our peers is among the highest human motivations. But now our social approval is in the hands of tech companies.

When I get tagged by my friend Marc, I imagine him making a conscious choice to tag me. But I don’t see how a company like Facebook orchestrated his doing that in the first place.

Facebook, Instagram or SnapChat can manipulate how often people get tagged in photos by automatically suggesting all the faces people should tag (e.g. by showing a box with a 1-click confirmation, “Tag Tristan in this photo?”).

So when Marc tags me, he’s actually responding to Facebook’s suggestion, not making an independent choice. But through design choices like this, Facebook controls the multiplier for how often millions of people experience their social approval on the line.

Facebook uses automatic suggestions like this to get people to tag more people, creating more social externalities and interruptions.

The same happens when we change our main profile photo — Facebook knows that’s a moment when we’re vulnerable to social approval: “what do my friends think of my new pic?” Facebook can rank this higher in the news feed, so it sticks around for longer and more friends will like or comment on it. Each time they like or comment on it, we’ll get pulled right back.

Everyone innately responds to social approval, but some demographics (teenagers) are more vulnerable to it than others. That’s why it’s so important to recognize how powerful designers are when they exploit this vulnerability.

Hijack #5: Social Reciprocity (Tit-for-tat)

  • You do me a favor — I owe you one next time.
  • You say, “thank you”— I have to say “you’re welcome.”
  • You send me an email— it’s rude not to get back to you.
  • You follow me — it’s rude not to follow you back. (especially for teenagers)

We are vulnerable to needing to reciprocate others’ gestures. But as with Social Approval, tech companies now manipulate how often we experience it.

In some cases, it’s by accident. Email, texting and messaging apps are social reciprocity factories. But in other cases, companies exploit this vulnerability on purpose.

LinkedIn is the most obvious offender. LinkedIn wants as many people creating social obligations for each other as possible, because each time they reciprocate (by accepting a connection, responding to a message, or endorsing someone back for a skill) they have to come back to linkedin.com where they can get people to spend more time.

Like Facebook, LinkedIn exploits an asymmetry in perception. When you receive an invitation from someone to connect, you imagine that person making a conscious choice to invite you, when in reality, they likely unconsciously responded to LinkedIn’s list of suggested contacts. In other words, LinkedIn turns your unconscious impulses (to “add” a person) into new social obligations that millions of people feel obligated to repay. All while they profit from the time people spend doing it.

Imagine millions of people getting interrupted like this throughout their day, running around like chickens with their heads cut off, reciprocating each other — all designed by companies who profit from it.

Welcome to social media.

After accepting an endorsement, LinkedIn takes advantage of your bias to reciprocate by offering *four* additional people for you to endorse in return.

Imagine if technology companies had a responsibility to minimize social reciprocity. Or if there was an independent organization that represented the public’s interests — an industry consortium or an FDA for tech — that monitored when technology companies abused these biases?

Hijack #6: Bottomless bowls, Infinite Feeds, and Autoplay

YouTube autoplays the next video after a countdown

Another way to hijack people is to keep them consuming things, even when they aren’t hungry anymore.

How? Easy. Take an experience that was bounded and finite, and turn it into a bottomless flow that keeps going.

Cornell professor Brian Wansink demonstrated this in his study showing you can trick people into keep eating soup by giving them a bottomless bowl that automatically refills as they eat. With bottomless bowls, people eat 73% more calories than those with normal bowls and underestimate how many calories they ate by 140 calories.

Tech companies exploit the same principle. News feeds are purposely designed to auto-refill with reasons to keep you scrolling, and purposely eliminate any reason for you to pause, reconsider or leave.

It’s also why video and social media sites like Netflix, YouTube or Facebook autoplay the next video after a countdown instead of waiting for you to make a conscious choice (in case you won’t). A huge portion of traffic on these websites is driven by autoplaying the next thing.

Facebook autoplays the next video after a countdown

Tech companies often claim that “we’re just making it easier for users to see the video they want to watch” when they are actually serving their business interests. And you can’t blame them, because increasing “time spent” is the currency they compete for.

Instead, imagine if technology companies empowered you to consciously bound your experience to align with what would be “time well spent” for you. Not just bounding the quantity of time you spend, but the qualities of what would be “time well spent.”

Hijack #7: Instant Interruption vs. “Respectful” Delivery

Companies know that messages that interrupt people immediately are more persuasive at getting people to respond than messages delivered asynchronously (like email or any deferred inbox).

Given the choice, Facebook Messenger (or WhatsApp, WeChat or SnapChat for that matter) would prefer to design their messaging system to interrupt recipients immediately (and show a chat box) instead of helping users respect each other’s attention.

In other words, interruption is good for business.

It’s also in their interest to heighten the feeling of urgency and social reciprocity. For example, Facebook automatically tells the sender when you “saw” their message, instead of letting you avoid disclosing whether you read it (“now that you know I’ve seen the message, I feel even more obligated to respond.”)

By contrast, Apple more respectfully lets users toggle “Read Receipts” on or off.

The problem is, maximizing interruptions in the name of business creates a tragedy of the commons, ruining global attention spans and causing billions of unnecessary interruptions each day. This is a huge problem we need to fix with shared design standards (potentially, as part of Time Well Spent).

Hijack #8: Bundling Your Reasons with Their Reasons

Another way apps hijack you is by taking your reasons for visiting the app (to perform a task) and make them inseparable from the app’s business reasons (maximizing how much we consume once we’re there).

For example, in the physical world of grocery stores, the #1 and #2 most popular reasons to visit are pharmacy refills and buying milk. But grocery stores want to maximize how much people buy, so they put the pharmacy and the milk at the back of the store.

In other words, they make the thing customers want (milk, pharmacy) inseparable from what the business wants. If stores were truly organized to support people, they would put the most popular items in the front.

Tech companies design their websites the same way. For example, when you you want to look up a Facebook event happening tonight (your reason) the Facebook app doesn’t allow you to access it without first landing on the news feed (their reasons), and that’s on purpose. Facebook wants to convert every reason you have for using Facebook, into their reason which is to maximize the time you spend consuming things.

Instead, imagine if …

  • Twitter gave you a separate way to post a tweet than having to see their news feed.
  • Facebook gave a separate way to look up Facebook Events going on tonight, without being forced to use their news feed.
  • Facebook gave you a separate way to use Facebook Connect as a passport for creating new accounts on 3rd party apps and websites, without being forced to install Facebook’s entire app, news feed and notifications.

In a Time Well Spent world, there is always a direct way to get what you want separately from what businesses want. Imagine a digital “bill of rights” outlining design standards that forced the products used by billions of people to let them navigate directly to what they want without needing to go through intentionally placed distractions.

Imagine if web browsers empowered you to navigate directly to what you want — especially for sites that intentionally detour you toward their reasons.

Hijack #9: Inconvenient Choices

We’re told that it’s enough for businesses to “make choices available.”

  • “If you don’t like it you can always use a different product.”
  • “If you don’t like it, you can always unsubscribe.”
  • “If you’re addicted to our app, you can always uninstall it from your phone.”

Businesses naturally want to make the choices they want you to make easier, and the choices they don’t want you to make harder. Magicians do the same thing. You make it easier for a spectator to pick the thing you want them to pick, and harder to pick the thing you don’t.

For example, NYTimes.com lets you “make a free choice” to cancel your digital subscription. But instead of just doing it when you hit “Cancel Subscription,” they send you an email with information on how to cancel your account by calling a phone number that’s only open at certain times.

NYTimes claims it’s giving a free choice to cancel your account

Instead of viewing the world in terms of availability of choices, we should view the world in terms of friction required to enact choices. Imagine a world where choices were labeled with how difficult they were to fulfill (like coefficients of friction) and there was an independent entity — an industry consortium or non-profit — that labeled these difficulties and set standards for how easy navigation should be.

Hijack #10: Forecasting Errors, “Foot in the Door” strategies

Facebook promises an easy choice to “See Photo.” Would we still click if it gave the true price tag?

Lastly, apps can exploit people’s inability to forecast the consequences of a click.

People don’t intuitively forecast the true cost of a click when it’s presented to them. Sales people use “foot in the door” techniques by asking for a small innocuous request to begin with (“just one click to see which tweet got retweeted”) and escalate from there (“why don’t you stay awhile?”). Virtually all engagement websites use this trick.

Imagine if web browsers and smartphones, the gateways through which people make these choices, were truly watching out for people and helped them forecast the consequences of clicks (based on real data about what benefits and costs it actually had?).

That’s why I add “Estimated reading time” to the top of my posts. When you put the “true cost” of a choice in front of people, you’re treating your users or audience with dignity and respect. In a Time Well Spent internet, choices could be framed in terms of projected cost and benefit, so people were empowered to make informed choices by default, not by doing extra work.

TripAdvisor uses a “foot in the door” technique by asking for a single click review (“How many stars?”) while hiding the three page survey of questions behind the click.

Summary And How We Can Fix This

Are you upset that technology hijacks your agency? I am too. I’ve listed a few techniques but there are literally thousands. Imagine whole bookshelves, seminars, workshops and trainings that teach aspiring tech entrepreneurs techniques like these. Imagine hundreds of engineers whose job every day is to invent new ways to keep you hooked.

The ultimate freedom is a free mind, and we need technology that’s on our team to help us live, feel, think and act freely.

We need our smartphones, notifications screens and web browsers to be exoskeletons for our minds and interpersonal relationships that put our values, not our impulses, first. People’s time is valuable. And we should protect it with the same rigor as privacy and other digital rights.

How Google Marketers Exploit Your Discomfort


We’re trained to serve ads in your moments of quiet desperation

Today, three out of four smartphone owners turn to Google first to address their immediate needs. As a result, Google marketers like me must survive on our ability to play on your impatience and impulsiveness when you’re using a mobile device. We must be there to serve you an ad in your “micro-moment,” the second you decide to use your phone to alleviate the discomfort of not having “it” now — whether “it” is a last-minute sale, directions to a soon-closing store, information about a fast-filling class, or anything else.

As Google plainly phrases it, micro-moments are the “intent-rich moments when decisions are made, and preferences shaped.” This belies what Google can’t say: Your need-it-now mentality usually comes with uncomfortable feelings of anxiety and fear. When you’re shopping in this mindset (for anything, not just a product), your restraint is clouded by emotion. Your immediate transactional, navigational, or informational “need” is conflated with a desire for your bad feelings to go away.

In reality, Google’s goal (and our goal, as Google marketers) is to separate you from as much of your money as possible every time you aren’t thinking clearly —and we do so through ads. Micro-moments are so important to Google’s bottom line that, since a May 2016 keynote, Google has taught us marketers how to best leverage them against you. We do this by serving the ad best suited to your flavor of impulse, and by making sure we’re there for each of those impulses. In a perfect world, marketers would be trained to help you use Google well when you are of an impressionable mind. Instead, we’re taught to exploit your befuddlement.

Whether you’re aware of it or not, you have micro-moments about 150 times per day. You will see ads during most of them. These ads speak to what you seek; play on emotions that are unlike you; and fit your age, income, gender, location, and browsing history (as well as other targeting methods I outlined in part 1). Marketers who can’t serve ads in your moments of ephemeral distress die a quick death.

Desperation in consumerism is nothing new. Consumerism relies on it. But today, the degree of targetable desperation with ads is unprecedented. Micro-moments are a very recent phenomenon. They have only been made possible in the last few years due to specific conditions:

  • The number of cellphones in consumers’ hands has hit critical mass.
  • Our relationship with our phones has changed.
  • Our relationship with Google has changed.

A basic example of a micro-moment that any marketer would kill for is when you, the consumer, are standing in a shoe store and it’s about to close. You know for a fact the store has the new Air Max you’ve had your eyes on, but you’re not so sure about the reviews on these new kicks. You’re going to be dropping a couple of hundred bucks, so you definitely want to confirm the reviews are good before you buy. But you can’t find a salesperson to ask about the sneakers. Or, more likely, there’s one standing right by you, but you trust what your phone says over what they do (we’re all guilty of this).

“Dear shoppers,” the intercom says, “we’ll be closing in five minutes. Please bring your final purchases up to the register.”

In a moment of desperation, you turn to Google. You search for “Nike Air Max reviews.” The results page loads, and our ads get in their positions.

As Google “thinks,” the switches are flipping inside the AdWords account of every marketer targeting your physical location, your query (“Nike Air Max reviews”), your age, your gender, your income, and so on. Savvy marketers that are a match will bid up aggressively in a battle to have the №1 result position on your phone (the top two positions on mobile are coveted because they’re all that really matter; the vast majority of mobile users don’t scroll down the search results page).

The ads load.

“We’re closing,” the salesman says. You ignore him, again (poor guy).

A marketer somewhere in the world has just won the battle for your micro-moment.

You’re about to click the ad to read the review it promises to show you, but at the very last moment, your eye catches the price in the ad copy. The exact shoes are listed for $25 cheaper than in the store. That’s it; you’ve made up your mind. You have converted. You don’t make eye contact with anyone, and you make directly for the exit. Sitting in your idling car afterward, you buy the sneakers through the ad.

A marketer somewhere in the world has just won the battle for your micro-moment. They are awarded your money for their victory as well as another, more important trophy: your conversion. That marketer accrues a “+1” tally mark in their AdWords ledger. They forever will be able to look back at that very moment to see the levers that delivered your sale and tweak them as needed to ensure their client’s ad is in the №1 position in any of your future micro-moments.

Micro-moments are leveraged by marketers on behalf of advertisers (in the previous example, that would be Nike) in nearly every industry, whether it’s in B2C (business to consumer) or B2B (business to business). It doesn’t matter whether the product the ad is selling is a sneaker, a loan, a bail bond, a whitepaper download, or a free eBook. As long as there’s an action that the marketer wants you to take, there will always be a correlating moment when they exploit your desperation.


Sometimes the desperation we’re leveraging against you in your micro-moment happens organically, like in the shoe store example. Sometimes it happens inorganically, with the urgency manufactured by us. Ads with countdowns and bogus “flash” sale ads are some ways we create FOMO that plays on your fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

There are industries whose very services rely on the urgency inherent in micro-moments — using the mobile device as a panacea. One of these is locksmiths, who, for years, abused Google ads to exploit people when they were locked out of their homes.

When you are in the market for no product other than the alleviation of discomfort, your phone is your salve.

For example, a successful marketer with a locksmith client would know to skew up their bids for women searching for help online after standard business hours on mobile devices. Marketers know these women, who are locked out of their homes, are often very tired, may have their children with them, and might not have anywhere else to go. In other words, these are women who are willing to do anything to alleviate their anguish, no matter the cost.

After the Google searcher places a call to the locksmith through the ad, the offending advertiser may sell the call out to an offshore center while the searcher waits for help. And when that help arrives, it comes at 10 times the price promised in the ad. Scammers aren’t often shy about using intimidation to demand full payment on the spot. In one common practice, the imposter locksmith drills the lock and won’t let the Google searcher into their house until they pay up.


Advanced marketers know it’s not enough to simply be there in each of your need-it-now moments when it’s something tangible you seek. Sometimes, what you seek is immaterial but no less exploitable. Marketers who rise to the top in a world of constant micro-moments understand that your desire to buy, go, or do is not the only reason you turn to your phone in a state of urgency.

Today’s average consumer spends 4.7 hours per day on their phone. And I’d wager most of that time is not spent with the intent of buying a product before a sale ends or getting to the mall before it closes or signing up for a degree program. A chunk of the time you spend on the phone is, of course, during stretches of boredom—when you’re in the bathroom, while your spouse is telling you about their day, or when you’re driving on a side street. A successful manipulator of micro-moments is not as interested in serving you ads when you’re bored—when you have little intent and are not led by emotion.

You don’t even have to open Google to be exploited.

But we want to serve you ads during another form of downtime when you are clouded by emotion: during your moments of social awkwardness. And we humans are uncomfortable in social settings many, many times per day: in the elevator, waiting at Starbucks, when a stranger sits across from us on the train, or when a co-worker inquires about our weekend. There is no adult who doesn’t understand the unique sensation in the guts triggered by these modern encounters, or how ridiculous it can feel to get your coffee, settle in at a table, and then sit there with no distractions. When you are in the market for no product other than the alleviation of discomfort, your phone is your salve.

You don’t even have to open Google to be exploited; if you just browse the web, Gmail, or YouTube, you will be served a Google ad. Whether you click it or not, you are being impressed, counted as a view-through, and entered into a conversion path that will culminate days and clicks later.

There’s an ad for every variety and instance of your relief-seeking—all of them hosted across channels through Google. The targeting methods used to convert you at your lowest are informed by Google and wielded, at times irresponsibly, by marketers.

And Google keeps us informed of the best practices.