Talk:Criticism of Google

Archive 2 contains the thread "Google Watch History"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

==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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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. The original research team published benchmark data in their Nature paper and related technical documentation. Lead researchers Anna Goldie and Azalia Mirhoseini published a detailed response addressing the criticisms and citing evidence supporting the methodology's validity. Following an 18-month investigation, Nature published an addendum in September 2024 that upheld the paper's claims and methodology. Subsequent research has built upon the AlphaChip methodology. A 2024 study presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations extended the approach, and a 2022 IEEE paper demonstrated applications of similar techniques. 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

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

The current state of affairs does not warrant any change in the article. The controversy, in a nutshell, is that Google claims their method is a breakthrough, or at least an improvement, but others don't believe it, and believe Google is making claims without evidence.

There is a well known and completely uncontroversial method for showing a new placement method is a breakthrough, or at least an improvement. You simply run your new algorithm on well-known and public designs, and show it gets better results, or it runs faster, or some other improvement. This has been standard academic practice for decades, ever since some proposed placers worked well on only selected examples. For example, 'RePlace' is an academic placer, and this is a tiny fraction of table V in the paper RePlAce: Advancing Solution Quality and Routability Validation in Global Placement It straightforwardly shows their method gives better results, although often with worse runtimes:

Table Caption (Optional)

Benchmark	Best Known		RePlace
	Wire Length	CPU time	Wire length	CPU time
Adaptec-1	74.20	13.13	73.01	14.18
BigBlue-3	264.48	33.15	255.07	68.62
NewBlue-7	978.07	246.00	335.19	889.18

In particular, releasing the source code is not enough to show the new method is an improvement, nor are results on unpublished designs. You need real results on particular examples. Furthermore, when other researchers have re-implemented the methods from the released source, the results have been underwhelming. The current status as of late 2024 is summarized here:"Updates Spark Uproar". Until and unless the AlphaChip method is directly and transparently compared with other existing methods, and shown to be better, then claims of the method's superiority will continue to be controversial.

Note for reviewers: an additional request is in progress at Talk:Google Brain that may be relevant. Encoded  Talk 💬 19:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Not done: Most of the sources here are either WP:PRIMARY or not WP:INDEPENDENT. Some of the claims are not cited. In the existing section good sources are used. The edit request would flood the section with information that so far is not supported by good sources.

The, "Google has disputed the criticisms" could be fair primary source claim to add but the citation is ill formatted and nonexistent leading me to belief this is an LLM generated request. Czarking0 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Czarking0 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Czarking0 for the detailed feedback. I understand your concerns about primary sources and citation formatting.

Regarding the LLM comment: I did use AI assistance to help format the Wikipedia markup syntax, as I'm still learning the technical aspects of citation templates. However, the substance of the request - the sources, arguments, and what changes to propose - are my own. I apologize if the formatting errors made it appear otherwise.

I acknowledge that several sources I cited are primary (GitHub, Anna Goldie's statement, Google's blog). You're right that these don't meet Wikipedia's standards for independent verification of contested claims.

However, I believe there is one significant secondary source that warrants inclusion: Nature's published addendum from September 2024. This represents independent peer review of the controversy and is directly relevant to the existing section's statement that "Nature is also doing an independent investigation."

Revised minimal request:

Change: The sentence currently reading: "Google claimed that Nature completed its investigation in April 2024 and 'found entirely in our favor,' with the editor's note subsequently removed in September 2024.[260]"

To: "Following an 18-month investigation, Nature published an addendum in September 2024 addressing the concerns raised about the original paper."

This citation is to Nature (a reliable secondary source), properly formatted, and simply updates the existing text to reflect what actually happened with the investigation mentioned in the article. I've removed all primary sources from this revised request.

Would this more limited change be acceptable? Ag77777 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Ag77777 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the addendum itself, it lists Goldie as the author and uses "we" to mean the original conductors of the study. I don't see how this is independent of google. I do think this section has MOS:CLAIM issues Czarking0 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Czarking0 for reviewing the addendum.

To clarify: Anna Goldie has left Google and no longer works for or represents

the company. While the addendum uses "we" referring to the original research

team, it was published through Nature's formal correction process after their 18-

month independent investigation into the concerns raised.

I understand this is still technically a response authored by the research team

rather than an independent third-party evaluation. However, the key point is that

Nature - as an independent publisher - completed their investigation and made

an editorial decision to publish this correction rather than issue a retraction. The investigation outcome itself (Nature's editorial

decision) is what I believe warrants mentioning, as it resolves the statement in

the article that the paper "is under investigation."

Would you find it acceptable to simply update the factually outdated statement

about the ongoing investigation to reflect that Nature concluded their review,

without characterizing what the addendum says? For example:

Change: "...and the paper is under investigation by Nature.[60]"

To: "...and Nature concluded its investigation in 2024, publishing a correction

authored by the original research team.[60]"

This would be factually accurate, note the authorship clearly, and avoid any

claims about what the investigation found. Regarding the MOS:CLAIM issues you

mentioned - are there specific statements in the existing section you'd like me to

help address? Ag77777 (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Nothing in that paper indicates that its results are independent of google. It does not call itself a publisher correction and you have misrepresented the citation to change the order of the authors and added "Publisher Correction:" to the title which it does not have. Czarking0 (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

References

AI-generated content

@Czarking0: Which portions of this article appear to have been written by a large language model? Jarble (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The AlphaChip section I was working had a lot of issues with addressing things in the wrong subject like someone had copy pasted the results of "summarize this document" style prompts. I may have resolved it? Czarking0 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Wrongful account bans

So if I do want to add a section regarding the wrongful account bans on YouTube, where would that even go on this article?

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us-streamers/youtube-creator-bans-controversy-why-endermans-case-has-raised-global-concerns-over-ai-based-moderation/articleshow/125233743.cms
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us-streamers/why-some-long-time-youtube-channels-are-disappearing-without-warning/articleshow/125624158.cms
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us-streamers/why-youtuber-endermans-channel-was-really-deleted-and-what-ai-had-to-do-with-it/articleshow/125117732.cms
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us-streamers/augierfcs-channel-suspended-by-youtube-ai-moderation-claims-violation-was-fake/articleshow/125990269.cms?utm_source=ai_faq

~2026-33028-30 (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Criticism of Youtube

Do we have enough content to split it off into it's own thing? ~2026-43195-67 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)