1. Let's make a better search engine.
2. Let's put ads on our search engine.
3. Let's create our own ad network so that we can control what ads look like, so they're unobtrusive.
4. People like our ads, let's put them on other people's pages.
5. People want more interesting ads, let's expand out.
6. Our business relies on ads, we need to collect more user data so we can focus ads even better than our competitors.
By doing advertising 'better' they could make a better product. Unfortunately, they went down the exact same path that other advertisers did: getting more invasive and more aggressive and less user-centric. I hate slippery slope arguments, but this seems to apply in retrospect.
Most of the steps down this slippery slope were likely to the end of providing a better service. that is why it is insidious, you don't need to act "the love of money" to end up serving "the love of money"
> I’d love a detailed account of the process which derailed these moral ideals. Anyone?
It's relatively easy and fits into what Google has been doing: they want advertising to fit the (current) needs of the consumer, and the better the fit, the more money they can command for ad slots - compared to the "old guard" which simply firehosed advertising around without any kind of conversion tracking or effectiveness.
For example, when I'm in Munich and searching for a haircut and I get ads for a haircutter in Berlin, that ad money is wasted for the advertiser, and I as a customer lose one potential spot for a Munich based haircutter. When Google now shows me an ad for a Munich haircutter, or even better, one that is less than 5min of walking away, then both the haircutter benefits (from my haircut) and I benefit (for not having to walk more than I need to).
Or, to expand on this example, metadata like opening hours - advertising for a store that is closed is wasted money when I need an open store.
All that acquisition of ever more data is what drives Google: the more data they possess, the more fine they can tailor your advertising, and thus be geared towards both advertisers and users at the same time. After all, if the ads aren't effective, the advertisers will pack up shop and leave, and the users will be frustrated because they don't get what they need.
They later acknowledged that ads could give better experience. Their earlier beliefs in the beginning were probably based on the ads at that time. 1 search engine didn't distinguish bw search results and ads, leading to bad user experience. Clearly, Google eliminated this.
I’d love a detailed account of the process which derailed these moral ideals. Anyone?