You are missing the part where Google ranks search results. If you Google "Joe" and the first result is "Bob says Joe is a pedophile", Google is implicitly saying that is the single most important result about Joe.
Thus, I reject this argument unless Google is willing to argue its search result ranking is no better than random chance and that results on the first page are equally as relevant and useful as those on the last.
Isn't that kinda reductive? We absolutely do expect google to be somewhat legitimate and correct, in a wide range of queries. In the most generous to your meaning terms, We expect them to, when googling stuff about someone, not rank a random tweet alongside a nyt article, right?
> We absolutely do expect google to be somewhat legitimate and correct, in a wide range of queries.
I don't have any such expectation. Why do you have such an expectation?
Google is not magic. It is impossible to divine objective reality from counting links.
> We expect them to, when googling stuff about someone, not rank a random tweet alongside a nyt article, right?
If a random everyday Joe had a New York Times article written about them, I'd expect that to rank at, or very near, the top.
However, most people not only don't have an NYT article written about them, most have almost nothing about them online other than some standard social media or random data brokers content. So it seems likely that some unique content about a random Joe should probably rank highly because there's no real competition. That doesn't imply its true.
I guess you're right, I'm being too loose. I should say, I expect google to at least give some consideration to the quality of the source it considers when ranking results and giving me an answer, and for queries about pop culture stuff or news something it can access wolfram for, who am I trusting more there? Google? Or the sources it pulls from? I agree it's not magic but to waive liability of consideration for search results off under the guise of "don't trust a google search" seems reckless?
Say that somebody talks some trash about a random person online.
This isn't the New York Times where there may be some link authority, or may Allah forgive me for even uttering these haram words, Buzzfeed News.
Where should that random trash-talking rank? Doesn't it seem more relevant than a lot of the random links about random people from random data brokers online? Should random unsourced trash talk about some random person rank closer to the first page or closer to the last page? To me, it seems notable and should be close to the top.
And I think one improvement (that will never happen) is that Google should be telling people some polite version of "Literally everything you read on the Internet should be considered bullshit until verified".
Results on the last page may very well be as useful as results on the first, if not more so. Especially considering for a lot of search queries there's countless biz and nefarious individuals gaming the SERPs with SEO schemes.
IMO, how Google presents data to users is largely worthless in 2023 unless you are utilizing special operators like quotation marks and minuses. Even then, it's really how the user is choosing to filter through that data.
Thus, I reject this argument unless Google is willing to argue its search result ranking is no better than random chance and that results on the first page are equally as relevant and useful as those on the last.