If anyone isn't familiar with this here's the Wired article

Here’s how it works. Say you search for “children’s clothing.” Google converts it, without your knowledge, to a search for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear,” making a behind-the-scenes substitution of your actual query with a different query that just happens to generate more money for the company, and will generate results you weren’t searching for at all. It’s not possible for you to opt out of the substitution. If you don’t get the results you want, and you try to refine your query, you are wasting your time. This is a twisted shopping mall you can’t escape.

Why would Google want to do this? First, the generated results to the latter query are more likely to be shopping-oriented, triggering your subsequent behavior much like the candy display at a grocery store’s checkout. Second, that latter query will automatically generate the keyword ads placed on the search engine results page by stores like TJ Maxx, which pay Google every time you click on them. In short, it's a guaranteed way to line Google’s pockets.

It’s also a guaranteed way to harm everyone except Google. This system reduces search engine quality for users and drives up advertiser expenses. Google can get away with it because these manipulations are imperceptible to the user and advertiser, and the company has effectively captured more than 90 percent market share.

It’s unclear how often, or for how long, Google has been doing this, but the machination is clever and ambitious. I have spent decades looking for examples of Google putting its enormous thumb on the scale to censor or amplify certain results, and it hadn’t even occurred to me that Google just flat out deletes queries and replaces them with ones that monetize better.

That's really obvious based on how fucking terrible their results are now. Google was the most useful tool in the world for a long time. Now they're just a really rich spyware farm.

Having 1gb of mail storage in 2004 was epic, having a 25gb profile in 2023 that I can never see is less so.

Same, dude... same.

It's not that shocking. Spyware companies have been doing this stuff since the 90's, and Google is basically just a really rich spyware company now.

Definitely gone lower.

That's how Microsoft markets their "safe links" in Outlook, which is more or less the same behavior of wrapping all links with a redirect. Whether they actually do anything with that to save you from phishing attempts or whatever... who knows. Even if there is a safety feature, it's still an easy way to mine url query params for data or learn about the user for other purposes (which they may or may not be doing)

IMO if you can't turn it off, there's a secondary motive to the feature. Especially when the feature is marketed from a place of fear rather than aid.

Of course it’s not at all surprising but it’s still particularly egregious and should be called out.

you absolute fucking nincompoop! You've never fully fleshed out every single possible vector that Google could use to track and catalog you? Moron!!

-You, just now

I have a Google Doc that's a statblock for an RPG. It has a link to the mage armor spell, which goes directly to https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-armor/.

I just downloaded that statblock as an html. Then I opened that html file. The statblock is there and it all looks pretty much the same.

But then I hover over the mage armor link and it instead goes to https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-armor/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1696552528610887&usg=AOvVaw1Wgq9wmajthwTbYmk1EmHx.

This page immediately redirects to the proper destination in a fraction of a second. Blink and you'll miss it. However, it does allow Google to track that I clicked the link, and probably associate it back to me and/or the original document.

What's layman words for this please?

Hi! I'm over here on lemmy, and created this post as a link to your post. I don't think there's a mutually compatible way to repost/boost a mastodon post into a lemmy community, but this seemed close enough.