Papyrocracy – Rule by Paperwork

Bureaucracy – Rule by Office – or, even more literally, Rule by Desk. A very useful word which in its mildest and most forgiving sense means a system of administration in which the administrators – officials – those of the office – follow rules very carefully, but which in its far more accurate, delicious sense means the tyranny of the official, and all of the inflexibilities, inefficiencies, incompetence, and general twattishness that inevitably follows.

And yet I find that this word is not enough to describe the kind of insanity that we are surrounded with in the present day. With every passing year, I notice that I have to give more and more scans of different documents to be able to do things – and the constraints on them have become narrower and narrower. ‘Send us a scan of a recent credit card statement or utility bill with your current address. It must be from the last 6 minutes, show your full name and star sign, and have been certified by a dental hygienist with a Ph.D. in Sanskrit.’ Completely ignoring the fact that everything’s gone paperless – I don’t know how I’m supposed to prove that I’ve ever lived anywhere now.

I have to give the same information out again and again to companies – and those most loathesome of all institutions, banks – even though they definitely have my name, telephone number, and address from the last time I gave it to them – which is invariably a few days ago. Somehow, their computer systems, perfectly capable of remembering my email address when they want to send me spam, suffer from attacks of amnesia at any other time.

I am actually shocked by how often I am asked to email someone a scan of my passport as proof of identity. How is this even allowed? Surely it’s a massive security failure to have everyone emailing scans of their passport all over the place all of the time? Why has what is supposed to be the most secure document you can own become equivalent to a meme?

We are ruled by little pieces of paper – as well as their electronic counterparts – and it’s mad’ning. I thought that perhaps rather than the word ‘bureaucracy’, we ought to have a word that literally means ‘Rule by Paper’. The word ‘paper’ is from Greek papyros – ideal – we can combine this in the usual way with the Greek-origin suffix -cracy, meaning ‘rule by’, for papyrocracy – Rule by Paper, Rule by Paperwork.

It turns out I’m not the first person to think of this word. The word already exists with this meaning – it’s just not a very common word at all. Some dictionaries list it as a synonym for ‘bureaucracy’, but I don’t think it should be thought of as a perfect synonym. I think ‘papyrocracy’ should refer to the absolute worst excesses of bureaucracy (itself already something that is the worst excesses) – when paperwork itself becomes the aim – when filling out forms again and again and again becomes the aim. In papyrocracy, you are a slave to little pieces of paper – nothing happens without them, yet having them in no way ensures that the right thing happens – just that what happens conforms to what the little pieces of paper say. The purpose of everything becomes filling out forms – to no real end other than to fill out more forms. In the style of Douglas Adams, one might call it ‘Vogocracy’. In the style of Matt Lucas and David Walliams, it’s the final, all-consuming tyranny of ‘Computer says no.’.

Internet search is completely broken

I can’t find anything on the internet anymore.

I began to notice the deterioration of internet search several years ago. I possibly noticed it first with programming queries. I do a lot of computer programming, and as any programmer knows, you spend a lot of time searching for how to do things on Google. Often it’s quite simple things – things you’ve done before – but with so many languages and standard libraries, you can’t quite remember how to do it with this programming language and this standard library.

First it became harder to find the answers to more obscure questions – okay, I thought, maybe it’s just harder for Google to understand what I’m looking for. Then it became harder to find the answers to easy questions – sometimes dead easy questions. And it’s at the point now where I have to trawl through five, six, seven websites to maybe find the answer I’m looking for – even for the most basic questions, like those about for … of and for … in loops in JavaScript.

What’s infuriating is that often I know that there is a webpage with the answer – because I’ve looked it up before and found it, but I can’t quite remember it exactly so I just need to look again – but that webpage is now nowhere to be found – it has completely vanished from the search results. About 10% of the time I can find the page again after about 10-15 minutes of searching. The other 90% of the time, the page is lost forever.

I am far from the first to comment on this phenomenon. Others have suspected that the reason behind it – specifically when it comes to Google – is just plain greed. Google wants to make more money, so they show you more paid search results instead of the actually good and accurate ones.

I’m not entirely convinced. There is a certain attitude that can creep in at technology companies – particularly large and prestigious ones. This is the attitude of everyone wanting to have ‘their thing’. Everyone wants to have ‘their thing’ on the live site – their idea, their feature. Everyone at these companies knows that they’re going to have to change companies after a couple of years, so they want to have some idea or feature that they can claim to be theirs that they can talk about when applying to other companies. It doesn’t matter if that feature is actually what the users want or what’s good for the site – these people don’t really care about the site – they’re not going to be working on it for long anyway. They just want something to put on their curriculum vitae. This attitude leads to the constant shipping of new features – there’s always a new feature, a new project, a new complete redesign of the site. It inevitably results in sites being bloated with features – like Facebook is – Facebook has far too much random junk on it. Companies overshoot their optimal product by just adding more and more things.

Meanwhile, the core features get ignored. There’s no glory in the core features. Carefully maintaining a system over years doesn’t look nearly as good on paper as adding a new feature – your feature.

And this certainly applies to Google Search. The Google Search results page is now just filled with shit. If I search for something simple like ‘the Moon’, I am shown an information box at the side, an interactive diagram, a ‘people also ask’ section, even though I didn’t ask a question, a whole block of news stories about the Moon. Somewhere in amongst all of that I might be able to find a search result or two. Has Google forgotten that one of the original appeals of their site 25 years ago the fact that it was free from clutter?

I have a suspicion that another aspect of the collapse of internet search is control. 15 years ago, it was widely – if not universally – believed that the user knew best. It was not for the company to tell the user what they should have or what they should want. If users wanted a certain setting, they got it. If users wanted a certain feature, they got it. Then sometime in the 2010s – around the time that TikTok became popular – it changed. Technology companies decided that they knew best. The user didn’t know what they wanted – not really. The user couldn’t be trusted to make their own decisions. What video do you want to watch next? Oh, you don’t get to decide that. YouTube has already decided that for you, and we’ve also already set the video to autoplay, even though you didn’t tell us to do that. Oh what’s that? You don’t want to restart your computer at this exact moment in time? You’re working on something important? That doesn’t matter. Microsoft has decided that your computer will now shut down and be updated. No, you can’t change this setting.

At the same time, technology companies were increasingly filled with censorious people. Along with this idea that users couldn’t be trusted to know what they wanted technically, they also couldn’t be trusted to know what they wanted in terms of the kinds of content – sites, posts, images, videos – that they were getting. Users couldn’t be trusted to go to the right websites.

As soon as a search engine has an opinion about what you should and shouldn’t be seeing, its algorithm stops being about accuracy. Search is power – the power to look at something that isn’t what the company wanted you to look at, and that can’t be allowed.

This censorious impulse has been very obvious on YouTube over the years – it’s so bad on YouTube that I have to have a Chrome extension that allows me to block entire channels – because YouTube started very heavily pushing channels that I wasn’t interested in but which clearly fit YouTube’s bias. I have no reason to think that this censorious impulse hasn’t also affected Google Search.

Of course, usually when we ask ‘Which of these causes is what caused this?’, the answer is all of them. And perhaps that’s true here. A greed for money, a need for pride, and a lust for power.

Anyway, it’s at the point where internet search is so bad that I would happily pay for a better search platform, but when I try to search for one …