Talk:Criticism of Google

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Google article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Archive 2 contains the thread "Google Watch History"

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mass surveillance Mid‑importance Criticism of Google is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Google High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google Mobile Services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color Technology Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Internet Mid‑importance Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Censorship by Google was copied or moved into Criticism of Google with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Material from Criticism of Google was split out into Privacy concerns regarding Google on December 5, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

Scroogle was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 March 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Criticism of Google. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. ag77777 (talk · contribs) has been paid by AlphaChip on their behalf.

Do I need permission to add content to this article?

Do I? It appears that I do. Are editors no longer assuming good faith about my edits?
What about utilizing a CNN source to write about conservatives criticism of about the firing of James Damore.
What about criticism published in Newsweek and the Independent about calling Repubicans Nazis?
What about Trump and conservatives criticsm of Google and alleged result rigging published in The Hill?
What about criticism published in National Review about Google being a monopoly?
What about a claim of political censorship published in the Washington Post, this other claim published in BuzzFeed News, and this criticism published in U.S. News & World Report written by Robert Epstein?
What about this criticism published in ArsTechnica, of both left leaning and right leaning growth of distrust of Google?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RCLC! You are asking many questions, but I suggest you make a few additions to the article & see if they survive WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

quality of searches.

can we add a section to the article addressing the fact that searching the web via google just plain sucks now? i mean, it’s complete garbage as a search engine, the one thing that it was made for and once did so well back in the good-old days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.167.134 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Copyright

YouTube has seen heavy criticism from YouTubers for not intervening in false copyright claims. For example, TheFatRat has tweeted that a company unaffiliated with him has copyrighted his own original song. Others like SiivaGunner have seen their channel terminated due to companies ignoring Fair Use. Some YouTubers have seen companies hold their channel for ransom. As I use Wikipedia on a school computer, can someone find sources for this? ruuuka (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google has always showed a fake large figure as the number of results

Search any thing and go deep for the last pages, you'll see that Google is showing for example only 300 results for what it claimed to be about 5 million results at the first page. More on this here https://searchengineland.com/why-google-cant-count-results-properly-53559 This has been a strategy to deceive users about it having a huge database and overtake other rivals from the early days.

Outdated passages

A very large proportion of this article concerns issues and events prior to 2014, many of which have been completely resolved (some of which say so) but some of which are ongoing with much more recent sources available (e.g. YouTube fair use issues.) I am inclined to create Hisory of Google criticism and move all the obsolete portions without contemporary updates there. Also the intro and WP:SUMMARY in the main Google#Criticism and controversy article are just as bad. EllenCT (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit Propaganda

The article contains the passage "to authoritarian regimes like Venezuela, Ethiopia, and Pakistan." I won't vouch for Ethiopia or Pakistan, but Venezuela is not "an authoritarian regime" just because it suits U. S. Foreign Policy objectives to claim so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:200:2C80:B46A:8AB5:C8DD:8B2 (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit, was WP:OR not supported by the source. removed --PaulT2022 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Jedi Blue

https://mlexmarketinsight.com/news-hub/editors-picks/area-of-expertise/antitrust/google-acknowledges-it-foresaw-possibility-of-probe-of-jedi-blue-advertising-deal-with-facebook 107.242.121.47 (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2 - Digital Futures== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iky234, Z1016 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zmuhl (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Local Guides

I would add that I am puzzled at the paucity of criticism of the Google Local Guides program. There are bits here and there that surface when one searches using Google… and then suddenly disappear… odd. Almost as if they had been suppressed... The Local Guides program is exploitative and often bogus. 121.44.29.224 (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PRISM Collection Details.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Youtube Bots to Youtube Comments.

More recently, many bots have been roaming the comment sections of Youtube. They either contain Explicit Content or Scams. If they can't be mentioned here, they should at least be mentioned in the Wikipedia page for Youtube. Wikibrowser30 (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that discusses that? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Google Maps Reviews

The criminal Google Admins massively censor Reviews of Locations, like shops, doctors, bars etc. As soon as you dont obey the mainstream opinion (i.e. review negatively), that is mostly faked by the location owner, you get deleted and silenced. Corruption makes this feature the opposite of what people think it is. It just a promotion tool for restaurants, clubs, doctors, supermarkets but doesnt allow your honest opinion and spookily read every text before it will mostly not published and allows flagging for a billion reasons (most ridiculous: bad words like a*hole, c*nt), but not, the really only important, for posting a blatant lie. The owner has always right, the reviewer will be deleted for no reason. I dont like to be censored by an a*hole for telling the truth to people in calling him that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF08:4E00:5695:A02F:1234:258B (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any admins in Google Maps, just an (admittedly crummy) algorithm. Are there any sources talking about it? Tavantius (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:YouTube moderation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube ID Verification

Should we put the new YouTube ID Verification feature on this list? Everyone hates it now. 2600:4041:528B:ED00:4569:CAB7:9924:2AAE (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the concern? https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/home-entertainment/youtube-is-using-ai-to-verify-your-age-now-and-if-its-wrong-thats-on-you-to-fix/ Or something else? Bob the Guilder 16:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 2600:4041:528B:ED00:7829:597C:55AE:C196 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would this source work?

https://www.webpronews.com/youtube-ai-age-verification-sparks-creator-outrage-and-50k-petition/ 2600:4041:528B:ED00:79FB:6D6D:20A4:F1E8 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would these sources work as well?:

• https://www.webpronews.com/youtube-launches-ai-age-verification-amid-creator-privacy-backlash/
• https://dig.watch/updates/youtubes-ai-flags-viewers-as-minors-creators-demand-safeguards
• https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/50k-youtubers-rage-against-ai-spying-that-could-expose-identities/

2600:4041:528B:ED00:D514:7531:AFA3:7732 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated information, likely written by an LLM

See this section:

In 2025, Google faced major developments in its ongoing antitrust battles, culminating in a landmark settlement addressing shareholder litigation over the company's alleged anticompetitive conduct. Following judicial rulings in 2024 and early 2025 that found Google had illegally monopolized both the online search and digital advertising markets, the company agreed to a $500 million commitment over ten years to overhaul its internal compliance structure. This settlement, among the largest compliance-related contributions ever in a shareholder lawsuit, requires Google's parent company Alphabet to establish new, independent risk and compliance oversight committees at the board and executive levels. The reforms are intended to address criticism that Google's leadership failed to adequately mitigate antitrust risks that led to multiple investigations and lawsuits by federal and state authorities. While Google admitted no wrongdoing, the measures are expected to result in lasting changes to its internal regulatory practices. These compliance reforms are being implemented alongside ongoing court hearings over potential remedies—including calls by the U.S. Department of Justice to divest core assets such as Google Chrome and its advertising businesses—in response to the courts’ findings of anticompetitive conduct in both search and ad tech markets. Dflovett (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add Nature investigation outcome and Google response to AlphaChip controversy section

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Criticism of Google. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 246 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hi, I represent Google DeepMind and am requesting an addition to the AlphaChip controversy section to provide Google's response and subsequent developments. Requested changes:

Addition of Google's response and supporting evidence

Proposed new subsection after "Responses and ongoing debate":

Google's response and supporting research

Google has disputed the criticisms and maintained that the AlphaChip methodology is sound. Following the controversy, the company released open-source implementation code and training data to enable independent verification.^[1] The original research team published benchmark data in their Nature paper^[2] and related technical documentation.^[3] Lead researchers Anna Goldie and Azalia Mirhoseini published a detailed response addressing the criticisms and citing evidence supporting the methodology's validity.^[4] Following an 18-month investigation, Nature published an addendum in September 2024 that upheld the paper's claims and methodology.^[5] Subsequent research has built upon the AlphaChip methodology. A 2024 study presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations extended the approach,^[6] and a 2022 IEEE paper demonstrated applications of similar techniques.^[7] Critics, however, maintain that fundamental concerns about reproducibility and comparative performance claims remain unaddressed. Rationale: The current section extensively documents criticism but does not include Google's substantive response or subsequent developments, including Nature's published investigation outcome. This addition provides balance by presenting the company's position and citing evidence they view as supporting their claims, while maintaining the neutrality required by noting that critics remain unconvinced. This approach gives readers access to both perspectives and the underlying sources.

References

1. . Google Research Training https://github.com/google-research/circuit_training%7Ctitle=Circuit Training. Retrieved [current date]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. Nature. 2021. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03544-w graph placement methodology for fast chip design https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03544-w%7Ctitle=A graph placement methodology for fast chip design. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. Mirhoseini, Azalia (2021). "A graph placement methodology for fast chip design". arXiv:2109.02587. A bot will complete this citation soon. Click here to jump the queue
4. Goldie, Anna. on AlphaChip Research https://www.annagoldie.com/home/statement%7Ctitle=Statement on AlphaChip Research. Retrieved [current date]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
5. Nature. September 2024. doi:[DOI if available] A graph placement methodology for fast chip design%5d https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08032-5%7Ctitle=[Addendum: A graph placement methodology for fast chip design]. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
6. . ICLR. 2024 Reinforcement Learning for Boolean Circuit Minimization https://openreview.net/forum?id=0t1O8ziRZp%7Ctitle=[Retrieval-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Boolean Circuit Minimization. {{cite conference}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
7. IEEE. 2022. doi:10.1109/[exact DOI] tool for dry sterilization%5d https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9980637%7Ctitle=[Electronic tool for dry sterilization]. {{cite conference}}: Check |doi= value (help); Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Ag77777 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]