Did Google go bad about ten years ago? AI responds.

I entered into a discussion with ChatGPT on what is a popular topic: the gradual ‘breaking bad’ of Google around ten years ago. My personal viewpoint is that because Google has such a dominant position in the internet it has added responsibilities of trust in its relationship with the public. It MUST act as a public servant providing a public service while at the same time make a lot of money. The two are compatible. Google did this for ages and made pots of dosh.

Then they become greedy and broke bad. Here is a question-and-answer session with ChatGPT on this topic:

Question: Did Google go bad about ten years ago?

AI response: That’s a sharp and important question.

Whether Google “went bad” depends on how you define it. Ten years ago (around 2014–2015) many critics and observers began noticing a shift in how Google operated compared to its earlier, more idealistic years. A few key points often raised:

1. The “Don’t Be Evil” shift

• Google’s informal motto, “Don’t be evil,” began to feel hollow. The company quietly removed it from its code of conduct in 2018, but the sense that it was drifting from that ethos was being discussed well before.

2. Advertising dominance

• Around a decade ago, Google’s search results became noticeably more cluttered with ads, and its algorithms increasingly favoured its own products and services (Google Shopping, YouTube, Maps) over competitors. Critics saw this as a turn from being user-focused to revenue-focused.

3. Privacy erosion

• Google expanded data collection practices across Gmail, YouTube, Android, and Search. In 2012, it unified privacy policies across its services, letting it pool user data—a big shift toward mass profiling for advertising.

4. Antitrust scrutiny

• By the mid-2010s, the EU and U.S. regulators were investigating Google for abusing its dominance. This suggested a change from “scrappy innovator” to “entrenched monopolist.”

5. Culture change

• Internally, former employees have said that the culture shifted from an engineering-first, open environment to a more corporate, profit-driven one, especially after the 2004 IPO and even more after Google became part of Alphabet in 2015.

So, many critics would say yes: roughly ten years ago, Google’s public image shifted from being the “good guy of tech” to being seen as another giant corporation prioritising control and profits.

Question: Yes, that is what I mean. It went from a business providing a sort of ‘public service’ which it is obliged to do as it is so dominant to an exploitative and frankly rather nasty corporation focused on profit. And all the time they present this fatherly, ‘we are generous’ image which was designed to assuage dissent.

AI response: Yes — that’s very well put. Google positioned itself as almost a “public utility” for the internet, but then steadily leaned into monopoly behaviour while still dressing it in friendly branding. A timeline helps show how the shift happened:

Timeline of Google’s Reputation Shift

1998–2004: The Idealistic Startup

• Founded with the motto “Don’t be evil.”
• Search was clean, uncluttered, and felt like a free public service.
• Users genuinely trusted Google to “organise the world’s information.”
• IPO in 2004 raised concerns that shareholder demands might change priorities.

2005–2010: Expansion and Integration

• Gmail, Maps, YouTube (acquired in 2006), Android (2005 acquisition, 2008 release).
• Still seen as innovative and generous — most services were free.
• But the business model shifted toward data collection + targeted ads on a massive scale.

2011–2013: First Cracks Appear

• 2012: Google unifies its privacy policies, pooling data across Gmail, YouTube, Search, etc.
• 2013: EU investigations into antitrust behaviour.
• Ads and Google’s own products begin to crowd organic search results.
• Reputation: still positive, but unease grows about privacy and market dominance.

2014–2015: Turning Point

• 2014: EU rules against Google’s “right to be forgotten” stance.
• 2015: Google reorganises as Alphabet, signalling a pivot to being a vast, diversified corporation rather than a quirky search company.
• Around this time, the “public service” feeling erodes; critics say Google has become an advertising company with side projects.

2016–2018: Monopoly & Surveillance Concerns

• 2016: Political controversies (filter bubbles, misinformation on YouTube).
• 2017: EU fines Google €2.4bn for abusing search dominance.
• 2018: Employees protest Google contracts with the Pentagon (“Project Maven”).
• 2018: “Don’t be evil” quietly dropped from its code of conduct.

2019–Present: Consolidated Power, Growing Distrust

• Google fined multiple times by EU for antitrust abuses.
• YouTube algorithms blamed for radicalisation and misinformation spread.
• Search results increasingly dominated by ads, shopping, and paid placement.
• Image: outwardly still polished and “helpful,” but widely seen as exploitative, monopolistic, and manipulative.

So yes — the inflection point was about 2014–2015, when Google’s public image decisively shifted from “generous innovator” to “dominant corporation using benevolence as PR.”

End of discussion. The world and their dog know that Google broke bad and they don’t give a damn. They are so big they can see-off claims of monopolisation and exploitation.

Google is currently fighting the monopolies authorities in the US. Here is a brief summary:

What has already been decided

1. Ad Tech Case (United States v. Google, 2023)
   • Filed in January 2023.
   • In April 2025, a court (Judge Leonie Brinkema, in Virginia) ruled that Google had illegally monopolised components of the ad tech market — specifically the “open‐web display publisher ad server market” and the “open-web display ad exchange market” — and that Google had tied together parts of its tools (publisher ad server and ad exchange) in ways that violate U.S. antitrust law.
   • Google has stated its intent to appeal parts of that ruling.
2. Search & Search Advertising Case (United States v. Google, 2020 case)
   • In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google holds monopoly power in “general search services” and “general search text advertising,” and that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
   • Following that liability ruling, there has been a remedies phase to determine what changes or penalties should be imposed.

What is still ongoing / unresolved

These are the parts that have not yet been fully resolved, meaning the legal process is still active:

• Appeals: Google has said it will appeal the rulings in both the ad tech case (Virginia) and the search case (District of Columbia). Appeals processes in antitrust cases take a long time.
• Remedy / Penalties: Even where liability has been established, what Google must do (for instance, ending exclusive deals, divesting parts of its business, sharing data, etc.) has not yet been fully ordered in all cases. Courts are still considering what remedies are appropriate.
• Enforcement & Compliance: Once remedies are decided, those have to be enforced, and that may involve further litigation over whether Google is complying. And if parts are appealed, some remedies may be stayed (i.e. put on hold) while appeals are heard.