Controversial opinion, and while I do think Google is largely to blame, I think there is another more systemic reason: speed/storage increase. Humans don't do well with an abundance of resources, in the sense that the end result with abundance is usually extreme waste and low quality. We just aren't evolved for handling abundance properly.
For example: extremely cheap food beyond the basics leads to obesity and poor diets. Cheap fossil fuels leads to climate disaster.
And in this case, cheap space and bandwidth (and to some extent ease of use) has led to anyone being able to put up a website, and cheap bandwidth means that people will waste more time using the internet as a random diversion rather than merely using it to obtain the most essential information. That means there's a much higher incentive to put tons of ads on it and SEO game it.
Or, think about this: what are the BEST parts of the internet? In my opinion, they are the parts with the LEAST amount of speed/modern features that require lots of storage. For example: email, this old-fashioned looking website, personal blogs.
Yes of course, some newer things like YouTube are quite interesting, but even YouTube is being overtaken by headline-hype videos and overly commercial things like sponsored videos and an algorithm that promotes tabloid-like stuff.
But imagine if YouTube was more restricted: it takes a while to load a video, maximum 1080P, and maybe you can only watch 1-2 a day. Then I believe it would be much more interesting.
Twenty odd years ago when I was moderating a forum as a teenager, we had to proactively nuke memes (or demotivationals as they were called) because the images ran up our server costs, which we were paying out of pocket money.
Now everyone can stream HD videos from their pocket with a push of a button from anywhere.
The entire infrastructure was reengineered in a span of a generation, completely changing the economics of how it works. It used to be a communal garden or occupied spaces: now it's a gigantic shopping mall.
For example: extremely cheap food beyond the basics leads to obesity and poor diets. Cheap fossil fuels leads to climate disaster.
And in this case, cheap space and bandwidth (and to some extent ease of use) has led to anyone being able to put up a website, and cheap bandwidth means that people will waste more time using the internet as a random diversion rather than merely using it to obtain the most essential information. That means there's a much higher incentive to put tons of ads on it and SEO game it.
Or, think about this: what are the BEST parts of the internet? In my opinion, they are the parts with the LEAST amount of speed/modern features that require lots of storage. For example: email, this old-fashioned looking website, personal blogs.
Yes of course, some newer things like YouTube are quite interesting, but even YouTube is being overtaken by headline-hype videos and overly commercial things like sponsored videos and an algorithm that promotes tabloid-like stuff.
But imagine if YouTube was more restricted: it takes a while to load a video, maximum 1080P, and maybe you can only watch 1-2 a day. Then I believe it would be much more interesting.