Good. These articles should be discriminated against by Google and ranked on the second page at best. They are worthless. Without the subscription, the whole si

Good. These articles should be discriminated against by Google and ranked on the second page at best. They are worthless. Without the subscription, the whole site is worthless. Google is just reflecting that. WSJ has no right to complain. If they don't like it, they should make their content not be worthless. Pretty damn simple solution but it seems they prefer to whine instead. If these idiots haven't yet understood the market for online content, it's pretty hopeless anyway. People don't want to pay money for content online, they will only pay with their privacy and personal data. There is enough content to fill up millions, maybe billions of lifetimes. What part of the supply / demand equation does the WSJ not get? Google is a search engine for finding information on the Internet, not their personal ad agency. When people search for news, they want to find news, not some paywall. How is it Google's duty to hurt their own business so they can show what are essentially foreign ads it makes no money on (nothing more, nothing less) to its users?