I remember you could reverse-image search some random manga panel on /a/ back in 2011 and google would be able to tell you the name of the series, what chapter it is in, and what the page number was. Now it just says 'comic'. Yes, Google, I know this is a comic, I'm reverse-searching the image because I want to know where it's from.One of the biggest decline in product quality I've ever seen and it came out of nowhere in the middle of the 2010s.
While enshitification is real, this isn't a case of that. Google got sued and was required by law to end the feature. The courts took the feature away, not corporate.
>>101540959but why
it used to be amazing, then they ruined it to the point of uselessness, then it's as if they started "improving on it" from that point of worthlessness as if they didn't have a perfectly functioning version before. so now it's somewhat better than it was before, but nowhere near as good as it used to be before thatgoogle is kafkaesque
>>101540959Citation?
>>101540970Multiple companies complained that google image search was able to find and distribute copyrighted works. Basically you would just use Google's interface to find and browse images based on Google's algorithm. News companies didn't like that, it meant you didn't need to visit their sites in order to see the big important picture of a plane crash or whatever.Basically, you would do something like upload "Obama.jpg" and Google would go "It's a picture of Obama". You could then begin browsing similar pictures on all sites all over the web, many of which would be technically stealing that picture because the Associated Press took that picture of Obama and only they are allowed to decide who looks at it.The courts stopped at preventing Google search from working in the first place, so you're still allowed to type in "Obama" into google image search and see whatever you get, but anything else image related is liable for copyright infringement.
>>101541051What case?
>>101541325>>101540997There is none, it's a glowfag. The real reason is people were using it to look up Hunter pictures and were finding Joe/Hunter's child sex tapes. Them having sex with children, not when they were children. Cameras and shit didn't exist way back when Joe was a child, obviously.
>>101541325I dunno what the case was called, but it was Getty Images that caused the change. Google was also required to subscribe to Getty Images.
>>101541377while i dont doubt both are into some perverse stuff, i'm pretty sure reverse google's image search became shit prior to 2015/2016
>>101541406>Getty ImagesHate those fuckers>pay $1000 to see this image without a watermark goy
>>101541421It became inaccurate, but it still performed a reverse image search.
>>101541325I think this was a pre trial settlementhttps://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-getty/
Companies building large models for machine learning just stole everything anyway
