AI Is Breaking Google

Killed Google Search? Why Because on May fourteenth, twenty twenty four, Google decided, in their incredible wisdom to add generative artificial intelligence to search results. These new AI generated results, dubbed Google's Search Generative ex Experience, replace the initial links you'll see on some pages with an aioverview, one generated by scraping the text of other websites, so that Google can answer your questions without you having to visit them and

consequently give them any ad revenue. It's very strange, but also you may be thinking, isn't generate if AI the thing that regularly gets things wrong and is kind of unreliable, and everyone knows about that Google wouldn't do that right wrong. McKinsey alumnus and Google CEO Sundar Pshai told The Verges Nile Patel that he believes these results will actually help

the Web. I'd argue otherwise, these generative results will only help centralize the Web's information around these big publishers that Google likes, all while creating less of a need for anybody to visit the rest of the Internet as in any of the other links, even if they're presented along

an AI generated summary. As Lauren Good of Wyatt said in a recent piece about Google's new shift to AI, by choosing when and where these overviews appear, Google is essentially deciding what is or is not a complex question, and then they're making a judgment on what kind of web content should inform its summaries, as well as what content you're actually going to see or learn from. Yet, these articles are also predicated on one very, very very

silly assumption. And I really respect Lauren and Nile, but seriously, you're making one major mistake. You're assuming that Google actually

cares about building and maintaining a good search engine. Though it's been fixed since I wrote this script, you used to as in a few days ago, be able to ask Google if there was a country in Africa that began with the letter K, and it would have resulted in the generative result that says as of September twenty twenty one, no African country begins with the letter K. However, Kenya is the closest African country to starting with a K sound with two citations a forum post from twenty

twenty one that quoted a hallucination from chat GPT and a website titled countries that start with the letter K with the very sentence beginning with Kenya. Google's generative search results have also recently said that one could use Elmer's glue to keep cheese from sliding off of a pizza, or that a dog played in the NBA, or that something called a squad plug is a device that helps keep the glutes tight while squatting, rather than a joke scraped from a Reddit post about a very very specific

kind of sex toy. Do not look it up. You do not need to know. These results, by the way, have already been taken care of because of the massive shit storm that Google is dealing with from the very obvious mistake they've made and will continue to make. It's very upsetting. And these results are a result of a modified version of Google's Gemini Generative AI. They're equivalent of chat GBT, generating answers based on the content of web pages.

And these web pages can include everything. I'm talking news outlets, random blogs, posts from Reddit, and it's just this vile new strategy where and I'm quoting the new head of Search, Liz Read, You're allowing Google to do the googling for you. Now, this is of course a really horrible idea for many many reasons. As I've mentioned repeatedly in the past, GENERAFAI has this tendency to hallucinate, where it authoritatively states something that just is not true, mostly because these models don't

actually know anything. General IVAI, like Gemini or chat GBT or Anthropics Claude or metas Lama. They're all responding to your queries by predicting what the most likely to be correct answer is based on parameters that they learned in their training data, which means that Google's AI powered search is googling for you with absolutely no comprehension or intellectual understanding or really any read of the content itself. As a result, all it's able to do is say, okay, ah,

all right. These phrases seem to make up what the right answer could be based on mathematics, and these links seem to include these phrases, So I guess that's fine, which is why Google all briefly recommended that you eat one rock a day because it was generating an answer

from the satirical newspaper The Onion. Google's response was to tell the vergis Kylie Robison that these were generally very uncommon queries that are not representative of most people's experience, specifically responding to Robison's own query where Google told her that the mammal with the most bones was a python just to be clear of python is a reptile. They do have bones though, fu fact. Now, as funny as these results might be, Google's AI powered search is really

horrible for the Internet at large. By summarizing other people's links to generate an answer, Google's effectively stolen the Internet, picking and choosing what parts it deems worthy of showing you, and then providing this kind of hackneyed, hallucination prone summary of what they think the links mean. Google's already positioned itself as a gatekeeper of the Internet. By the way,

they're meant to be the steward of what's important. And important is the word that they used in the regional paper to describe page rank, which was how they rank pages. And the theoretical value exchange was that we get reliable, safe results that actually answered our queries. But AI powered searches, they kind of turned Google into a source of truth and not a remotely reliable one. And they're using a

technology that is well known for getting things wrong. Now you may think, well, surely Google would be both aware of this and even if they even if they were aware of it, they would they wouldn't put this hallucination prone tech in deliberately. Right, Surely this must be some

kind of mistake. And you are wrong, because san Dar Pashai told Nile Patel in an interview that happened earlier last week that they're well aware of the problem of hallucinations and that they were still unsolved and that they

were an inherent feature of large language models. Sundar, You're completely correct, at which point the CEO of Google said that large language models were good because of this, and that in fact, it made them very creative, Sunda, what the hell are you talking about, man, I don't need Google to be creative. I need Google to answer my bloody question. When you say someone's being creative with the truth, you're describing someone lying. Oh my god, I feel like anyway. Anyway,

it's extremely obvious how dangerous this strategy is. Generative. AI could hallucinate I don't know how to deal with a chemical fire or a mental health issue, or authoritatively misinform somebody that say, I don't know Barack Obama was a Muslim, which is an actual generitive result that Google has since removed billions of people, regular non technical people, people that don't live on social media in the swill and constantly see the new news. They rely on Google every day

to answer questions. And they're going to assume that a multi trillion dollar tech company would not turn the most well trafficked source of information in the bloody world over to an aid. And Peter kafk go Over, a business insider, actually put this really well. He said, it's like the difference between being handed a map and being given directions that will send your car barreling over a cliff. I won't mince words, Google's AI powered searches a goddamn travesty,

both for the Internet and for society at large. By choosing what queries to summarize and what sites to pull from, Google both centralizes and polarizes the world's information, all while depriving actual publishers of traffic, the actual human beings creating the things that inform their search engine. And it's horrible. That alone is such a horrible problem. Now. Of course, Sandar Pashai told nil A Patel, who just went, yeah,

sure mate, okay, no pushback, man. He told them, no, this is actually good for the web because people will get the answers and then they'll click through. Yeah. Let me give you an example of how wrong you are, Sandar. Look at social media. Look at when people see clickbait. Do you think people go, oh, I should check the link. This could be used to get engagement for my tweet. No, they tweet the thing and get mad about it. I've done this within the last twenty four hours. I'm an idiot.

But still people are not going to be curious. They're going to assume that Google Search is not full of nonsense, that Google Search is not spitting out AI generated summaries using hallucination pron AI I feel like and going crazy anyway, while AI results cite their sources. It's just it's foolish to believe that regular people are going to click through to the results when Google itself has already answered the question, especially on service driven queries that answer, say, whether a

food is safe or some sort of factual question. Publishers, especially news outlets, already heavily dependent on Google Search traffic. They're terrified that these summaries will further reduce traffic at a time when social networks like Facebook, for example, are no longer really sending them readers. And let's be honest, Google search has already deteriorated drastically over the last few years, and its results are plagued with AI generated spam and

search engine optimized nonsense. And these results overwhelm good, unique, authoritative content to the point that major newspapers are put out public service announcements like the Wall Street Journal, by the way, about how to avoid scams in the very first results you see on Google. Now, you'd think that this deluge of bad press would make Google say, humh, we should fix Google Search, we should make things better. No, No, no, no, no,

that's not what we do here at Google. No. Google plugged in an already unreliable artificial intelligence into a product that it's deliberately allowed to decay so that customers can get quasi right answers from search results that Google itself barely maintains the quality of. It's a sound a bit frustrated because this is so strange. This is all so strange, this multi trillion dollar company, with this search engine that makes them tens of billions of dollars. They're just like,

you know, just put the II on it. They'll love it. And it sent their stock ups, so I guess it doesn't bloody matter. But back to the regular results just for a moment. Google claims that in its recent Core update that they've helped reduce low quality and unhelpful content

by forty five percent, and they're wrong. By the way, search is still dominated by search engine optimized content full of these links that are built to drive kickbacks to publishers called affiliate links, as well as YouTube links and Reddit links. And it's the very same content that informs and by the way, misinforms Google's generative results Google Search. It's just this lazy ugly product, and it lacks any nuance, it doesn't have ingenuity, and quite frankly, I'm beginning to

question whether it even has any utility anymore. Searching for best laptop, and I mean this from Las Vegas, Nevada, beautiful Las Vegas, Nevada brings up this affiliate mine market funded tech site, and then a link to best Buy, then another affiliate funded site, then another link to best Buy, then a series of questions you can click through which

say things like which brand of laptop is best? And when I click through the first one, by the way, it led me to a site called New Indian Express Deals and it's just full of affiliate marketing links, no real journalism of any kind. It's all. It could be AI generated. I have no idea, and it's tongues of these links to MacBooks and then things like a Techno megabook or the Honor Magic Book laptops that are not

available in America. Yeah, you know. One might imagine that the point of a search company is that it searches the web for you, surfacing things that you might find interesting or informative that you might not find otherwise, highlighting individual publishers that make great content that otherwise might get lost in the churn of the Internet, which makes billions and billions of pages so much to find the great morass of the Web. That's what Google is meant to be.

Yet the reality is that Google wants to highlight the same companies and the same publishers doing the same thing in the same way, because Google, at its core is a fundamentally lazy company that does not care about its customers. As it related in The Man Who Killed Google Search.

Google's revenue arms are the ones pulling the levers at the company right now, and they demand more queries, as in more searches on the platform, even if doing so makes the platform so much worse, because when you optimize a platform for people to spend more time on it and click on things more, you're not actually resolving a query or a problem. I know, more queries are what they're looking for, but they're not talking about resolving queries. They're just looking for more of them so that they

can show you more ads. But when you look at the state of Google right now, the current state of Google, you can see how these decisions have poisoned it. Google Search moves around its menus things like shopping images, news, and videos. Based on what you're searching for. It pumps results full of sponsored content YouTube videos. By the way, of course, they own youtubes. That's good for them. And then these arbitrarily chosen forum results, and then it deliberately

offer scates what might be a paid for link. It's just this chaotically disorganized, nakedly manipulated piece of crap, let's be honest, and the search engine optimization industry is eating it alive. And it really isn't clear whether Google lacks the ability to fix it or just doesn't really care that much yet. The sorry state of Google Search did a little digging here might also be the result of Google distancing itself from the same search optimization community that

I've been kind of harsh on. While SEO is a field that's inarguably harmed Google search results, it's also worth considering the outside of technical standards like how fast the site loads or whether it has a site map of its links. Google also kind of hides things from the SEO community. They offer scate what good looks like for fear that optimize, we'll use these standards to manipulate its results, which,

by the way, happens anyway. So what Google does is, instead of saying what good would be and I've kind of been wrong here, they vaguely say, yeah, you should kind of do this, but I'm not going to tell you exactly how. And then you get these people who still manipulate anyway. It's so strange, this company worth trillions of dollars. They act like a plucky startup, but only when it comes to actual quality control. But nevertheless, I

was quite interested in search optimization. So why you've got in Lily Rays, a fifteen year SEO veterrun, and she told me a really worrying story. I think that Google's kind of failing everybody. They're failing publishers, they're failing SEO people, and they're failing you and me. All right, so you've been in se over about fifteen years. But what actually is search engine optimization for a very basic listener who's never dealt with it.

There's a lot of technical work that goes into that. But of course there's a whole other end of the spectrum, which is people trying to take advantage of the situation and spam things and manipulate search engines. So it depends which type of BESDEO you're talking about.

on overall accessibility. And you know, for example, if an image is uploaded to a website and it doesn't have image alt text, which is actually required for website accessibility, search engines can't understand what's on that image traditionally, so we have to go in there and kind of add the right words in. So it's making that content more findable. And again, a lot of that's technical, but a lot

of that is content oriented. So people might write a certain article and in such a way that the way, you know, when people go to Google and they're looking for that article, they could never find it. So we're helping companies to kind of structure their content in the way where people can actually find what they're looking for.

other search engines give us. A lot of this is guesswork, you know, we try to make informed guesses based on the data itself, but Google and the search engines do give us a lot of clues and a lot of insights about what we should be focusing on, especially when it comes to the technical thing, so you know, giving us guidance about what we call like canonical tags. There are different metadata that we have to add to a website for them to really be able to parse crawl

through that website effectively. Those are direct signals that Google gives us that we work with. But a lot of it is kind of, you know, interpreting what we're seeing as far as what the data shows and then making informed guesses based on the history and on the analysis that we do for different clients.

great user experience. And Google does a lot of developer conferences, a lot of communications on the technical side, and it's quite easy to, you know, kind of get in touch with them if you have a specific technical question, like for example, John Vieler hosts Webmaster hangouts on Google often, if not like several times per month where he answers a lot of people's questions. So, yes, technically speaking, I think they do provide a lot of guidance.

good content or bad content kind of looks like. So that's something that the SEO community looks at a lot as well. But to your point, you know, getting into granular questions about is this content good or bad for Google? What does helpful content mean? That's become trickier in the last few years because they can't tell us everything because people spam everything that they can get their hands on.

quite successful. You know, a lot of people that are spamming Google, especially with AI lately, have have really made it into top positions, so they're getting a lot of visibility with those tactics. But you know, there's a lot of us that are doing work that again, it's like kind of advised by search engines to do because it really does make the Internet easier for everybody to use.

Uh So that's been a challenge lately. I think that for whatever reason, you know, maybe because Google's shifted internally so much of its focus to AI lately. Obviously there's these big external challenges that Google's facing as a business lately, maybe they're they're not haven't been as focused on search

quality for whatever reason. I don't actually have, you know, any type of evidence of that other than what I'm seeing, But I haven't seen as much spam and like SEO manipulation as I've seen over the last year or so. That being said, they're really cracking down on it in the last few months, so sometimes it just takes them a while to catch up.

against Google's SEO or spam guidelines. The difference now is that there's a lot of these new types of algorithm updates that Google is launching that are affecting a lot in a lot of people in the publishing space, so both large and small publishers, especially smaller publishers over the

last couple of years. And these are, for example, people that might have built a business doing travel blogging, doing recipe blogging, product reviews, and so if you do consider those people at business, and I think they would because they often have staff, they have people going to the places writing the travel reviews. Things like this, Google's dramatically reduce the visibility of how those sites appear on Google and the amount of traffic that they're getting.

for the last several years. Google has different, you know, policies and things that they recommend to site owners that I have found, I would say, up until twenty twenty three, I've found those recommendations to be very consistent with the work that we're doing for our clients. So it's very easy for me to go say, yeah, what Google says to do is what works right, And we've worked with a lot of different companies and found those tactics and

those recommendations to be very effective. The last few months, that's changed a bit for me. I'm not well, I'm not you know, my personal relationship with them is I want to be very careful to say, like, you know, the people that I know that that work at Google, and they you know, speak on behalf of Google, Like, this has nothing to do with them, right, This has

to do with what's happening in the search results. And you know when I see ai spam ranking above my clients for what we call top stories, so that's you know, the news features on Google for example, or I see that in Google's new aioverviews is getting everything so many different things wrong, and there's spam and there's malware in there, like things like this. It's just it makes us as seos look bad because we then have to go defend those results to our clients and try to make sense

of them. And that's been really challenging, very frustrating for me lately, because it's very hard to defend the quality of the search results when the search results are in a state of very poor quality.

at scale. And that worked extremely well for a year because guess what, it takes Google and the other search engines a while to kind of figure out what they're doing to develop new algorithms and new spam policies that you know, devalue or demote that type of content. But there was about a year where that content was succeeding

extremely well. So towards the end of twenty twenty three, you would see a ton of AI generated spam and the search results and people using AI tools in new and different ways to just accelerate whatever spamming they were doing.

And that's where you hear a lot of people saying, you know, this destroyed my business because there were a lot of people that just had no idea that they were going to get caught up in that. So that's on the search side. I think, you know, Google's proven time and time again that they can eventually get ahead of it. But I think they're presented with a lot of new and different challenges right now on the AI side. You know, I'm sure eventually they'll figure it out, or

this AI overview thing will get better over time. But it's been quite interesting to see publicly this week, so many examples of Google's new AI overviews getting information blatantly wrong.

the people who just don't care and are spamming. It's just it doesn't feel like they're able to make quick changes, and I just don't understand it. It drives me insane, honestly.

You might have noticed that nearly every big publisher on the Internet has ventured into product reviews in the last couple of years, and that's because it's a huge money maker. So one of the big complaints that people have is like, it's not fair that X, y Z big publisher shows up every time I'm typing best running shoes for women or whatever the keyword is, and believe it or not, you know this. I think this has been one of

the biggest complaints that people have had. But in the last two or three months, Google is cracking down on that in a very big way. I think it's just taking them a long time to figure out specifically how to target that.

necessarily be able to figure that out. So Google has to use a variety of different methods to demote that content and learn about those business relationships, and you can't just solve that all algorithmically.

and you've written about this as well. It feels that they could just do something to them immediately that why don't they take these fast actions because it doesn't seem like they're doing much anyway.

You know, a lot of times with sites that are just doing pure spam, it'll be the whole site that's doing spam. But these are obviously not to mention these are very very big brands. You can't you can't remove a site from Google or demote a site from Google, for if it's a brand that people are looking for and a brand that people would expect to see, right, because that may mean you can sort.

changes every single day. My biggest issue with it, so first of all, Google made it public, you know, a week ago, at Google Io, and myself and many others have been experimenting with it in Google Labs for a year before that, and in theory, you know, with AI, it should be improving and learning and getting better every day, right. For a year, myself and many others were raising flags about quality issues and also the fact that we just didn't feel like it often provided that much of an

improvement to the existing search results. For example, Google already had featured snippets, so if they want to take a paragraph or a snippet from somebody's website and display that directly in the search results, there was already a mechanism for that. So for the past year, you know, I've raised a million different examples of when it got things wrong. When I think it was, you know, responding to some type of super controversial question in a weird way, whatever

it was. And when they launched it, you know, literally I can tell you because I spent my whole life at SEO conferences. Most of us were like, there's no way they can launch this thing in its current form, like it's just so not ready, right, And they did, And here we are a week later, and nearly every you know, social media site has tons of examples of people wanting to it off, the tons of examples of

it getting things wrong. So you know, I want to be cognizant and respectful the fact that it will change, it will get better. I'm just quite surprised that they launched it in its current form when they did.

Because with featured snippets, at least you can say, Okay, this comes from this website, you can blame that website because they pull that data verbatim. When they're showing a featured snippet with.

hearing enough from small publishers. We're not giving small publishers enough of a chance for their content to compete, and they're kind of At this point, Google's just seems to be blasting Reddit everywhere for everything, maybe as a solution to that, because yeah, you get a lot of firsthand experience from Reddit, but I'm not sure that putting Reddit in top positions for so many different queries is a

solution either. So personally, I'd like to see a broader diversity of the types of websites that are able to compete.

of thwarting a hodgepodge industry full of nakedly craven bad actors, or they just un willing to intervene because it Google doesn't really care about anything other than how many times people search and how many ads they see, And they don't really mind if maybe this big mess of crap

makes the whole thing worse. This problem, it's been going on for years, and I feel crazy every time I talk about Google Search as a product and has a business that's such an incredibly profitable and ubiquitous product can be it's so utterly shoddy and regularly unfit for the task,

I feel insane. I feel crazy when I see article after article about Sandhar Pushai and Google talking about the remarkable success of Google, yet never the fact that they've done so much to damage this search engine, and they've so blatantly destroyed their core product. And what really upsets me is the sheer contempt that Google seems to have for its customers. Google Search is awful. It's a terrible, unreliable product, and now they've made it even less reliable

with the introduction of Generatifai. And yet sun Dar Pushai, the CEO of Google, can stride into interviews all piss and vinegar and ramble about how evalues independent sources and more authentic voices as his service continually fails the surface unique interesting or useful content. Nil Patel of The Verge got a lot of credit for giving Peshai a tough interview, but I'm gonna be bloody honest, paper Tiger. It's just another opportunity for a Google executive to vaguely suggest that

they care about search without really being held accountable. The question is, sun Dar, why is Google so bad? Now? And he will give you some vague pr spiel. Show him results. Nille did show him Chromebook results. The thing to do would be come with a few results and show him in front of him and say why is this so bad? Why? Sun Dar? And if you can get him to say on the record, actually, I think it's good. That says everything. What it says is he's a liar and he doesn't really care. But I guess

the interview did that anyway. Look, the problem, other than the fact that Google should be broken up and that search should be a public utility or a nonprofit, is that the media seems to continually lack the ability to simplify the problem. Google Search is bad, and it's been bad for a while. Results are worse. They're full of spam and low quality content. Google does a terrible job of maintaining the content on Google Search, and it's now

introduced an AI to search through these results. That makes things worse by generating answers based on search results from a search engine that's rotting in real time, and then it hallucinates the results. Anyway, Eh God, I apologize them getting a little bit head up, but this whole thing

just it kills me. It makes me feel a little bit nuts because if any of us, anyone listening to this, went into our jobs and our trousers were down and our our bits were out, and we were walking in, and we go in and we half do our job and the job's terribly done, would we get fired? We get fired. I think we'd get fired, maybe if the crap work we did made money, but we'd still be in trouble for our willies hanging out. And that's the thing.

None of these tech executives, even when faced with the media, seemed to actually be held accountable. And Google acts without integrity, and they just act with this stunning contempt for their customers. I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Suned up a shite is a goddamn management concern, a former McKinsey free with little interest in providing users with any kind of usable service, and his cronies people like Probagara, Ragavan

and Liz Read. By the way, Probagara has been upgraded to head of a bunch of things now and Liz Read is now the head of Search. It's so good he picked his successor, and it's so good that this person loves Ai. And these people they've continually helped Google put out bad software, all in pursuit of perpetual growth. And I believe they're part of a larger problem in the tech industry. Tech firms are no longer building things for customers. Big tech and honestly, far too many startups.

They're creating these products that are more like symbolic capital for investors so that they can place bets on them and say, ah, maybe red war here, no, maybe black this time, maybe double zero, And these things they only exist to express meteoric growth ten x, twenty x, thirty x returns things that sound satisfying for people to chirp on CNBC without ever actually really having to provide the service. They're discussing I'm not to be honest, it's breaking my arm.

As I said in my last episode, I'm not a pessimist. I'm more of a broken heared romantic. There was a time, and it wasn't super long ago, that tech was exciting and fun and interesting. When things came out that subtly or revertedly, they changed our lives, They made things better, they maybe connected us, or they made our time on our own better and more substantive, and things felt like

they were progressing. Yet it feels like so much of today's tech industry is focused on shipping products that nobody asked for to fix problems that don't exist, all while demanding applause for a future that they've yet to make a reality. Cryptocurrency, the metaverse, now generative AI. They're all trends that built this kind of pseudo religious movement to carry water for products that didn't do what they said.

They would guilt tripping those that said otherwise for not being optimistic enough about an industry there's continually failed to give us hope for the future, and it's disgraceful. It's disgraceful. Look at Facebook from my last episodes. Look at that website, that multi billion dollar website. Look how bad it is. Look how full it's of AI, spam and junk it is. Look how unsafe it is. Look at Google right now.

Google Search is falling. Apart of the seams. It kind of works and sometimes it does, don't get me wrong, but for the most part you just can't trust it any more. And that was before they plugged generative AI into it. Now the world's probably the world's most profitable tech product is just languishing. It's so much worse. And what's crazy is I don't even know how they're gonna make money from it because these AI results they don't seem to connect to ads or anything. They don't seem

to make Google money. But because Sandha Peshei needs to convince Wall Street that Google will grow forever, well, you gotta put AI in it, man, You gotta make the AI happen. Except regular people using this, they're gonna get misinformed. Someone's gonna die. And I really sound dramatic, I know, but they are because people use Google Search and rely on Google Search. They rely on Google Search to give

them real answers to real queries. And we can laugh about the fact it said that someone had to eat a rock a day. But what if they're trying to put out a chemical fire. What if they're depressed then they ask Google something and Google tells them, I don't know, some sort of weird CBD treatment because Google got poisoned by an AI spam result. There is, by the way, a fake result about Google telling someone to jump off the gong Gate Bridge. It's very fake, done for for it.

But seriously, though, something like that's going to happen. And yeah, I'm sure someone will say, oh, it's just an edge case. I don't give a crap an edge case where someone dies or is harmed or is misinformed. That's not worth it. It's not worth it. And these companies must learn. And I think what's going to happen is far simpler. I think they believe that people are just going to keep using it because they have these horrible monopolies. I think at some point people are just not going to use

search at all. I think that is the actual end result here. I think you see open AI create search engine and it kind of is worse than this. I think you're going to see a proliferation of this tech as people desperately try and catch up with Google and it's so distressing, it's so insulting to customers, turns my bloody stomach. I realized this wasn't a very positive podcast, but hope it filled in the gaps for you. Thanks

for listening, Thank you for listening to Better Offline. The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song is Metasowski. You can check out more of his music and audio projects at Matasowski dot com, M A T.

production of cool Zone Media. For more from cool Zone Media, visit our website Coolzonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.