Every kind of Google Search result was bad, and results for the names of products were the *worst*, an endless cesspit of affiliate link-strewn puffery and scam sites.

It's not that the internet lacks for high-quality, reliable reviews. There are plenty of experts out there who subject a wide range of products to careful assessment, laboratory tests, and extensive comparisons. The sites where these reviews appear are instantly recognizable, and it's a great relief to find them.

3/

One such site is Housefresh.com, whose proprietor, Giselle Navarro, runs a team that produces extremely detailed, objective, high-quality reviews of air purifiers. This is an important product category: if you're someone with bad allergies or an immunocompromising condition, finding the right air purifier can exert enormous influence on your health outcomes.

4/

As good as Housefresh are at reviewing air purifiers, they are far less skilled at tricking Google. The world champions of this are spammers, content farms that produce garbage summaries of Amazon reviews and shovel them into massive, hidden sections of once-reputable websites like Forbes.com and Better *Homes and Gardens*, and thus dominate the Google results for product review searches:

pluralistic.net/2024/05/03/key…

5/

Google calls this "site reputation abuse" and has repeatedly vowed to put a stop to it, and has repeatedly, totally failed to do so. What's more, Google has laid of more than 10,000 workers, including "core teams," even while spending tens of billions of dollars on stock manipulation through "buyback" schemes:

qz.com/google-is-laying-off-hu…

6/

Of course, the Housefresh team are smart cookies - hence the high caliber of their air purifier reviews - and they *could* apply that intelligence to figuring out how to use SEO to trick Google's algorithm. Rather than doing so, they took the high road: they applied all that prodigious analytical talent to researching and publishing on *Google's* systematic failures - and even collusion - with the spammers who are destroying the web.

7/

This month, Housefresh released its latest report on Google's enshittification, this time with an emphasis on the "AI Overviews" that now surmount every search results page. Google has widely touted these as the future of search, a way to bypass the ad-strewn, popup-obscured, AI-sloppified (!) pages that it is seemingly powerless to filter out of its search corpus:

housefresh.com/beware-of-the-g…

8/

Beware of the Google AI salesman and its cronies

Exposing the overly salesy AI Overviews that will push you to buy bad products and exploring the system making it possible.

^{Gisele Navarro (HouseFresh)}

Rather than hunting through these SEO-winning garbage pages, you can simply refer to Google's AI Overview, which will summarize the best the internet has to offer, in hyperlegibile black sans-serif type on a white background, with key phrases helpfully highlighted in bold.

9/

Most critiques of AI Overview have focused on how these AI Overviews are a betrayal of the underlying bargain between the web and its monopoly search engine, whereby we all write the web and let Google index it for free, and in exchange, Google will send us traffic in proportion to the quality of our work:

bbc.com/future/article/2025061…

10/

Is Google about to destroy the web?

Google says adding more AI to its search engine will rejuvenate the internet. Others predict an apocalypse for websites. One thing is clear: this era of online history is closing.

^{Thomas Germain (BBC)}

This is true, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Google is a platform, which is to say, a two-sided marketplace that brings together readers and publishers (along with advertisers). The bargain with *publishers* is that Google will send them traffic in exchange for access to their content. But the deal with *readers* is that Google will help them answer their questions quickly and accurately.

11/

If Google's marketing pitch for AI Overviews is to be believed, then Google is only shafting publishers in order to double down on its bargain with readers: to give us better access to high-quality information (recall Google's mission statement, "To organize the world's information and make it useful"). If that's true, then Google is the champion of readers in their long battle with publishers, a battle in which they are nearly helpless before publishers' abusive excesses.

12/

This is a very canny move on Google's part. Publishers and advertisers have more concentrated money than readers, but the dominant theory of antitrust since the Reagan administration is something called "consumer welfare," which holds that monopolistic conduct is only to be condemned if it makes consumers worse off.

13/

If a company screws its workers or suppliers to deliver better products and/or prices, then "consumer welfare" holds that the government should celebrate and protect the monopolist for improving "efficiency."

But all that is true only if Google AI Overviews are good. And they are very, very bad.

In the Housefresh report, titled "Beware of the Google AI salesman and its cronies," Navarro documents how Google's AI Overview is *wildly* bad at surfacing high-quality information.

14/

Indeed, Google's Gemini chatbot seems to *prefer* the lowest-quality sources of information on the web, and to actively suppress negative information about products, *even when* that negative information comes from its favorite information source.

Indeed, Navarro identifies a kind of madlibs template that Gemini uses to assemble an AI overview in response to the query "Is the [name of air purifier] worth it?"

15/

> The [model] air purifier is [a worthwhile investment/generally considered a good value for its price/a worthwhile purchase]. It's [praised/well-regarded] for its ability to [clean the air/remove particles/clean large rooms]. Whether the [product] is worth it depends on individual needs and priorities.

16/

This is the shape of the response that Google's AI Overview shits out when you ask about *any* air purifier, including a model that Wirecutter called "the worst air purifier ever tested":

nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/wo…

What's more, AI Overview will produce a response like this one even when you ask it about *air purifiers that don't exist*, like the "Levoit Core 5510," the "Winnix Airmega" and the "Coy Mega 700."

17/

The Worst Air Purifier We’ve Ever Tested

In this week's newsletter: The worst air purifier we've ever tested, plus the best new iPhone 11 cases.

^{Ganda Suthivarakom (The New York Times)}

It gets worse, though. Even when you ask Google "What are the cons of [model of air purifier]?" AI Overview simply ignores them. If you persist, AI Overview will give you a result couched in sleazy sales patter, like "While it excels at removing viruses and bacteria, it is not as effective with dust, pet hair, pollen or other common allergens."

18/

Sometimes, AI Overview "hallucinates" imaginary cons that don't appear on the pages it cites, like warnings about the dangers of UV lights in purifiers that don't actually have UV lights.

Google argues that AI Overview won't displace traffic to the sites it summarizes. The company points to the fact that the statements in an AI Overview are each linked to the web-page they come from.

19/

This is a dubious proposition, predicated on the idea that people looking up a quick answer on a search engine will go on to follow all the footnotes and compare them to the results (this is something that peer reviewers for major scientific journals often fail at, after all).

20/

But the existence of these citations allowed Navarro to compile statistics about the sources that Google relies on most heavily for information about product quality:

* 43.1% of these statements come from product manufacturers' marketing materials;

* 19.5% of these statements are sourced from pages that contain no information about the product.

21/

Much of the remainder comes from the same "site reputation abuse" that Google said it would stop prioritizing two years ago. An alarming amount of this material is also AI generated: this is the "coprophagic AI" problem in which an AI ingests another AI's output, producing ever-more nonsensical results:

pluralistic.net/2024/03/14/inh…

22/

The balance is primarily drawn from Reddit, who announced a major partnership with Google as part of the company's IPO:

blog.google/inside-google/comp…

Adding "reddit" to a Google query is a well-known and still-useful way to get higher quality results out of Google. Redditors is full of real people giving their real opinions about products and services. No wonder that Reddit appears in 97.5% of product review queries:

detailed.com/forum-serps/

23/

The Discussion Forums Dominating 10,000 Product Review Search Results - Detailed.com

- Updated the top 20 forums table to compare July vs February - Updated Reddit traffic chart for the last two years - Ran all numbers again for July

^{Glen Allsopp (Detailed)}

Obviously, the same SEO scumbags who have been running circles around Google for years are perfecctly capable of colonizing and compromising Reddit, which has been rocked by a series of payola scandals in which the volunteer moderators of huge, reputable subreddit were caught taking bribes to allow SEO scumbags to spam their forums and steal their valor:

web.archive.org/web/2025060705…

24/

When it comes to product reviews, Google's AI Overviews consist of irrelevancies, PR nonsense, and affiliate spammer hype - all at the expense of genuine, high-quality information, which is still out there, on the web, waiting for you to find it.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai is unapologetic about the way that AI Overviews blurs the line between commercial pitches and neutral information, telling *Bloomberg*, "commercial information is information, too":

bloomberg.com/news/features/20…

25/

Which raises the question: why is Pichai so eager to enshittify his own service. After all, AI isn't a revenue center for Google - it's a cost center. Every day, Google's AI division takes a blowtorch the company's balance sheet, incinerating mountains of money while bringing in *nothing* (less than nothing, if you count all the users who are finding ways to de-Google their lives to escape the endless AI slop):

pluralistic.net/2025/06/30/acc…

26/

It's true that AI loses money for Google, but AI earns something far more important (at least from Pichai's perspective): a story about how Google can continue to grow.

Google's current price-to-earnings (PE) ratio is 20:1. That means that for every dollar Google brings in, investors are willing to spend $20 on Google's stock. This is a very high PE ratio, characteristic of "growth stocks" (companies that are growing every year).

27/

A high PE ratio tells you that investors anticipate that the company will get (much) bigger in the foreseeable future, and they are "pricing in" that future growth when they trade the company's shares.

Companies with high PE ratios can use their stock in place of money - for example, they can acquire other companies with stock, or with a mix of cash and stock.

28/

This lets high PE companies outbid mature companies - companies whose growth phase has ended - because stock is *endogeous* (it is produced within the company, by typing zeroes into a spreadsheet) and therefore abundant, while *dollars* are *exogenous* (produced by the central bank - again, by typing zeroes into a spreadsheet! - and then traded to the company by its customers) and thus scarce.

29/

Google's status as a growth stock has allowed it to buy its way to dominance. After all, Google has repeatedly, continuously failed to create new products in-house, relying on acquisitions of other people's companies for its mobile technology, ad-tech, server management, maps, document collaboration...virtually every successful product the company has (except Search).

30/

For so long as investors believe Google is growing, it can buy other companies with its abundant stock rather than its scarce dollars. It can also use that stock to hire key personnel, which especially important for AI teams, where compensation has blasted through the stratosphere:

reuters.com/business/zuckerber…

But that just brings us back to the original question: why build an AI division *at all*?

31/

Because Google needs to keep up the story that it is growing. Once Google stops growing, it becames a "mature" company and its PE ratio will fall from 20:1 to something more like 4:1, meaning an 80% collapse in the company's share price.

32/

This would be very bad news for Googlers (whose personal wealth is disproportionately tied up in Google stock) and for Google itself (because many of its key personnel will depart when the shares they've banked for retirement collapse, and new hires will expect to be paid in scarce dollars, not abundant stock). For a company like Google, "maturity" is unlikely to be a steady state - rather, it's likely to be a prelude to collapse.

33/

Which is why Google is so desperately sweaty to maintain the narrative about its growth. That's a difficult narrative to maintain, though. Google has 90% Search market-share, and nothing short of raising a billion humans to maturity and training them to be Google users (AKA "Google Classroom") will produce any growth in its Search market-share.

34/

Google is so desperate to juice its search revenue that it actually *made search worse on purpose* so that you would have to run multiple searches (and see multiple rounds of ads) before you got the information you were seeking:

pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/nam…

Investors have metabolized the story that AI will be a gigantic growth area, and so *all* the tech giants are in a battle to prove to investors that they will dominate AI as they dominated their own niches.

35/

You aren't the target for AI, investors are: if they can be convinced that Google's 90% Search market share will soon be joined by a 90% AI market share, they will continue to treat this decidedly tired and run-down company like a prize racehorse at the starting-gate.

36/

This is why you are so often tricked into using AI, by grazing a part of your screen with a fingertip, summoning a pestersome chatbot that takes 6 taps and 10 seconds to banish: companies like Google have made their product teams' bonuses contingent on getting normies to "use" AI and "use" is defined as "interact with AI for at least 10 seconds." Goodhart's Law ("any metric becomes a target") has turned every product you use into a trap for the unwary:

pluralistic.net/2025/05/02/kpi…

37/

There's a cringe army of AI bros who are seemingly convinced that AI is going to become superintelligent and save us from ourselves - they think that AI companies are creating god. But the hundreds of billions being pumped into AI are not driven by this bizarre ideology. Rather, they are the product of material conditions, a system that sends high-flying companies into a nosedive the instant they stop climbing.

38/

AI's merits and demerits are irrelevant to this: they pump AI because they *must* pump. It's why they pumped metaverse and cryptocurrency and every other absurd fad.

None of that changes the fact that Google Search has been terminally enshittified and it is misleading billions of people in service to this perverse narrative adventure. Google Search isn't fit for purpose, and it's hard to see how it ever will be again.

39/

Support me this summer in the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop! This summer, I'm writing "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux that explains how to be an effective AI critic:

clarionwriteathon.com/members/…

40/

Clarion Write-a-Thon | Cory Doctorow

Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction author, activist and journalist. He is the author of many books, most recently RADICALIZED and WALKAWAY, science fiction for adults; HOW TO DESTROY SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM, nonfiction about monopoly …

^{clarionwriteathon.com}