The death of Google
Image by grok 2.0
On November 20, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that Google should divest its Chrome browser to help break up the company’s illegal monopoly in online search. This argument was outlined in a filing with the U.S. District Court, marking a significant development in the ongoing antitrust case against Google.
Google has long been a dominant force in the digital world, a tech giant whose name has become synonymous with the internet itself. It promises innovation, connection, and the democratisation of information. However, beneath its sleek façade lies a troubling reality: Google’s practices have left a trail of devastation for countless individuals and businesses.
Through its exploitative policies, questionable partnerships, harmful updates, and a relentless pursuit of global influence, Google has prioritised profit over people at every turn.
The fallout has been catastrophic, destroying livelihoods, enabling harmful ideologies, and tightening its grip on the global digital ecosystem. DATA SPLURGE examines how Google has managed to wreak havoc across so many facets of modern life—and why it must be held accountable.
Exploiting Consumer Trust
For a company that boasts about empowering users, Google’s refund policy tells a starkly different story. Whether its ad spend that yields no results, faulty apps purchased via the Play Store, or unintentional subscription renewals, Google has built its business on the principle of “no refunds”.
Small businesses, in particular, are hit hardest. They pour scarce resources into Google Ads campaigns only to find the platform’s metrics murky at best and their money irretrievable.
“SITTING HOMELESS ON THE STREETs during those freezing-cold nights, STARING AT THE looming, capitalist skyscrapers of canary wharf, i realised google’s hegemonic practices have completely fucked us all”
TOBY smalls, a PUBLISHER previously BASED IN CHIANG MAI, THAILAND, invested heavily in Google Ads after seeing HIS organic search visibility plummet due to algorithm changes. Despite spending thousands, his campaigns underperformed due to misleading ad practices — a fact he only discovered after a deep dive into analytics.
When TOBY sought TO CANCEL HIS GOOGLE ADS CAMPAIGN, THERE WAS NO AVAILABLE OPTION. THIS RESULTED IN HIS BUSINESS GOING under AND HAVING TO SEEK repatriation to the u.k. FROM THE BRITISH EMBASSY IN BANGKOK. AND IT only GOT WORSE.
“DUE TO GOOGLE’S GREEDY AMBITIONS AND LACK OF CONTROL OVER REFUND PROCESSING, ONCE REPATRIATED FROM THAILAND, I FOUND MYSELF WITHOUT FUNDS AND WAS FORCED TO SLEEP ROUGH in WHITECHAPEL. SITTING HOMELESS ON THE STREET during those freezing-cold nights, STARING AT THE looming capitalist skyscrapers of canary wharf, i realised google’s hegemonic practices have completely fucked us all”.
toby is slowly piecing his life back together but suffers from ptsd due to being attacked on the streets as a result of google making him homeless - and by extension, vulnerable to assault - and is often visited by night terrors.
The ethical implications are glaring: Google positions itself as a lifeline for businesses while leaving them financially stranded. Its refusal to offer meaningful recourse for these losses epitomises corporate greed over customer care, undermining trust and fairness.
Advertising Ties with Pro-Genocide Platforms
Google’s advertising ecosystem is sprawling, but its entanglements with platforms like Outbrain and Taboola are particularly concerning. These networks have gained notoriety for promoting clickbait, misinformation, and extremist content.
Worse still, they’ve been accused of amplifying pro-genocide propaganda in conflict zones — content that has contributed to real-world violence and suffering.
“Overnight, websites saw their traffic plummet by as much as 90%, obliterating revenue streams”
By funnelling ad dollars through these platforms, Google indirectly funds and legitimises such practices. This is not just a moral failing but a calculated decision to maintain revenue streams, regardless of the consequences.
For all its public statements on combating hate speech, Google’s complicity in these partnerships paints a grim picture: profit is more important than accountability.
The impact is deeply human. Entire communities are dehumanised, manipulated, and endangered by the very tools that claim to connect and inform. Google’s role in sustaining such harmful systems demands scrutiny—and action.
The Harmful Impact of the HCU Update
Google’s Helpful Content Update (HCU) of 2022 was marketed as a way to elevate “people-first” content and improve search results. In reality, it decimated countless small businesses and independent content creators.
Overnight, websites saw their traffic plummet by as much as 90%, obliterating their revenue streams.
One glaring issue with the HCU is how it disproportionately benefits large corporations. Big players with extensive resources to produce “SEO-friendly” content thrived, while smaller competitors were buried in search results.
The update’s opaque criteria also left many webmasters in the dark about how to recover, adding insult to injury.
The long-term consequences are stark. As Google’s algorithms continue to favour monopolies, economic diversity within the digital space erodes, stifling innovation and silencing voices that dare to challenge the status quo.
Google’s Colonialism
Google’s influence doesn’t stop at the digital realm - its ambitions extend into the physical world in ways that echo imperialism. The term “digital colonialism” captures the company’s global domination of data, infrastructure, and online behaviour.
“Google’s connection to Senate-approved psychopath Henry Kissinger underscores its alarming collaboration with violent foreign policy”
By controlling undersea cables, data centres, and cloud services in developing nations, Google positions itself as an indispensable gatekeeper of connectivity.
Google's new server facility in Waltham Cross has sparked outrage among local residents, who are deeply concerned about its environmental and social impact.
The data centre, which is part of Google's expanding infrastructure in the UK, has been criticised for its enormous energy demands, with fears that it will strain local power grids and contribute significantly to carbon emissions.
Residents are also alarmed about the potential noise pollution and disruption to the surrounding area, as well as the lack of transparency about how Google plans to mitigate these issues.
Climate activists have joined the opposition, arguing that such projects are incompatible with the UK’s net-zero goals and urging Google to instead invest in greener, more sustainable technologies.
This controversy has intensified calls for stricter regulations on tech giants to ensure their operations do not harm local communities or the planet.
These projects are often framed as altruistic — bridging the digital divide and empowering underserved communities. In reality, they entrench Google’s power, extracting data and resources while creating dependencies on its ecosystem.
This parallels the exploitative relationships of historical colonialism, where infrastructure was built to benefit the coloniser, not the colonised.
From the controversial Sidewalk Labs project in Toronto to monopolising urban tech hubs, Google’s reach is ever-expanding. Its growing influence over both our virtual and real-world environments highlights its unchecked imperialistic ambitions.
google, KISSINGER AND COCAINE
Google’s connection to Senate-approved psychopath Henry Kissinger underscores its alarming collaboration with violent foreign policy. Notably, Kissinger collaborated with Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, on a book about artificial intelligence.
The company’s collaborations with military-industrial projects, such as PROJECT NIMBUS enabled the deaths of innocent PALESTINIANS, further blur the line between corporate innovation and state-driven aggression.
These partnerships aren’t just morally reprehensible — they perpetuate systemic injustices on a global scale. By embedding itself in these structures, Google doesn’t merely facilitate harm - it actively participates in sustaining the very forces that marginalise and exploit vulnerable populations worldwide.
AND in UK politics, Google’s influence looms large. Take, for example, Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, which controversially chose to host its election night celebrations at Google’s UK headquarters IN Tottenham Court Road in London.
Reports of the event being fuelled by drug use — including claims of a “coke sesh” — only amplify the troubling relationship between a major political force and a tech giant accused of perpetuating genocide.
This incident highlights how deeply Google has embedded itself into systems of political power, using its influence to remain unchallenged by those who should hold it to account.
The Three Types of Google Employees
Google’s workforce is as complicit as its leadership, falling into three distinct categories:
True Believers: These employees genuinely buy into Google’s narrative of innovation and altruism. Often self-shielded from the company’s darker practices, they see themselves as part of a force for good.
Compromisers: Aware of the harm Google causes, they rationalise their involvement, citing personal gain, limited job mobility, or the belief that change can only happen from outside the company.
Enablers: Actively perpetuating harmful practices, these individuals drive policies that prioritise profit and power, knowingly contributing to the devastation Google leaves in its wake.
The company’s culture — a cocktail of hubris, complacency, and greed ensures that these dynamics persist, with employees either complicit or powerless to enact meaningful change.
Challenging Google’s Empire OF DIRT
From financial injustice to digital imperialism, Google’s trail of destruction is impossible to ignore. Small businesses are crushed under opaque policies, harmful advertising partnerships enable violence, and algorithm updates destroy lives in the middle east.
All the while, Google tightens its grip on the global tech ecosystem, operating with impunity and expanding its colonial ambitions.
However, there’s hope. In response to Big Tech’s unchecked power, ethical alternatives are emerging. One such initiative is YAYA, an ethical browser committed to transparency, privacy, and justice.
Spearheaded by BRIK, a collective dedicated to challenging exploitative tech practices, YAYA is crowdfunding to build a browser that aligns with the principles of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement.
As consumers, we have a choice: to continue enabling Google’s dominance or to support projects like YAYA that champion accountability and fairness. The future of our digital lives — and the real-world communities they affect — depend on it.