I think the crux of the others’ point is that Google’s increasingly complex secret sauce for returning search results, combined with its general ubiquity, has perhaps created a monoculture whereby we view the Web almost entirely through Google’s lens. AOL’s “curation” of the web via its portal was a bit more direct for sure, but I can see how the effect could be similar.

Oh believe me you can find all sorts of non curated filth as well using Google as well. I think it is still a pretty good engine for "if you insist, here is the path to rabbit hole". If you let google know about you, it will tune the results for you. I keep my history for this reason.

It’s not comparing technical merit or business decisions. AOL for a long time was the window into the web for lots of American users. Google is now a window into the web for users around the world.

Google’s algorithms have the ability to make companies essentially undiscoverable, deliberately or not, so there’s at least some comparison to be made with AOL’s keyword registry.

For me, the problem is that Google doesn't work like a charm at all. It used to, but it's been consistently getting worse over the years.

Examples? Maybe your expectations grew faster than technology to keep up?