17 ms·
How Google uses blacklists, algorithm tweaks and contractors for search results
- 7loopscom 7y agowhat is the purpose of sharing articles that are behind a paywall?
- helpPeople 7y agoBlogs= spam Paid articles = ???
- cameronbrown 7y agoDo you prefer ads or paywalls? Nobody's ever happy..
- holstvoogd 7y agogood point You just made me realize I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I don't want ads, but I will never pay for this either. Then again, I don't really want to read it anyway hehe That being said, if ads actual ads and not targeted surveillance crap, I'd be ok with that. I might have to change my adblocker settings to reflect that...
- taborj 7y agoYou should load up the Privacy Badger extension. It lets you adjust the settings to keep trackers at bay.
- happytoexplain 7y agoForgive me if I'm missing the point of your question, but isn't the answer obviously ads? Even if they couldn't be blocked, at least they don't prevent me from accessing the content. I guess ideally there would be ads with a pay option to remove them, but that's just from a consumer point of view. Regardless, I realize we shouldn't be complaining about paywalls in comments. I just wanted to address your question.
- 52-6F-62 7y agoWhen you block the ads, the publication doesn't receive revenue from them as the impression is lost. Then, the publication suffers and the quality falls.
- kidintech 7y agoBut this way the people who don't have a subscription (which we can safely assume to be GREATER than those who have ad blockers) don't even open the page, so they still don't get any revenue. ???
- 52-6F-62 7y agoI put that on par with: because I'm not paying for an Aston Martin, I don't get to drive one to work every day. Thus, I have nothing to contribute to discussion on daily drivers of Aston Martin cars. Just because I want to join the discussion doesn't mean I'm entitled to one of their cars anyway. Aston Martin isn't weeping for me because I don't get to drive one of their cars. Why would the publication just give away the product of their labour for free? [Especially the WSJ. That's against their cornerstone beliefs AFAIU.]
- malux85 7y agoThis is easy : I have an ad blocker, so I’m happy with ads.
- buboard 7y agoAds. The social contract of the web was: link aggregators bring traffic to websites which need views to ad-support themselves. WSJ doesnt need it. (This article is not available on archive.is or anywhere. You actually need to pay to see it).
- 52-6F-62 7y agoThere's a good chance your local library carries a subscription. Sometimes even online subscriptions. Take the article title/date with you and I'm sure you could get a hold of it to read in-depth. I know here in Toronto, our library subscribes via Pressreader which gives access to a large number of periodicals and newspapers. https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDMEDB0195&R=EDB0195 https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDMEDB01... Or try an aggregate service like Apple News where you pay a little more total but get wide-reaching access to a large number of pubs. edit: Sorry, it doesn't look like Pressreader has WSJ, but they do have a large number of other American pubs. Apple News+ has WSJ, I believe. https://www.pressreader.com/catalog/usa https://www.pressreader.com/catalog/usa
- SirYandi 7y agoYou install this Firefox extension to get past many paywalls https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox
- ineedasername 7y agoThe valid set of articles for discussion on HN are not limited to "content that can be obtained without paying for it" The point is that it's an interesting article. It's not hard to search for the keywords in the title and find some other news outlet covering it, albeit in less comprehensive detail, or look for comments that reiterate the salient details.
- dang 7y agoIf there's a workaround, it's ok. Users usually post workarounds in the thread. This is in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html and there's more explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20paywall https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
- gtirloni 7y agoI can't read the article but unless it's NOT about Google promoting their services on top of others, let me be the devil's advocate and ask: Are we elevating Google's search engine to public utility status?
- holstvoogd 7y agoSame here, but working with that assumption: Yes. And we might have too I'd say. Given the defacto monopoly they have, I think it is reasonable to agree that they fulfill a public utility function and thus need to be held to a higher standard. This should however be done through regulation, cause that is why we have governments.
- enitihas 7y agoBut other search engines do exist, and it is trivial to switch from Google to Bing or DuckDuckGo. Unlike a social network, you can switch your search engine in isolation without waiting for others to switch.
- buboard 7y agoCriticism can happen even without calls for public legislation. In fact i don't believe that's what the article suggests (I can't read it)
- helpPeople 7y agoWhen it gets bad, I'll stop going. But right now I am still getting decent results. I don't use Facebook anymore, yet we had some hysteria about that being manipulated.
- jbay808 7y agoI don't know about you, but when I search for "python string replace" I'd expect the first result to be the Python 3 documentation for 'string'. Instead, I get (in order): 1. GeeksforGeeks 2. Tutorialspoint 3. W3Schools 4. Programiz 5. Stack overflow 6. And then, finally, the official documentation... For python 2.7. How does this happen? Are these sites just paying Google a bunch for the rankings?
- Marsymars 7y agoI wouldn't expect the official documentation for anything to fare well with web search algorithms. This is probably a place where I'd support manual intervention, to boost docs/manuals/man pages/etc.
- jonas21 7y agoHonestly, this is because the organization of the Python 3 docs is terrible. The documentation for str.replace is located halfway down an enormous page that describes every single built-in type in the language [1]. And then, once you manage to find the entry for str.replace, what does it tell you? Return a copy of the string with all occurrences of substring old replaced by new. If the optional argument count is given, only the first count occurrences are replaced. That's it. No examples, no link to re.sub or other functions you might want to use for replacement. Stack Overflow or even W3Schools (gasp!) is much better results for this. [1] https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html
- saalweachter 7y agoIncidentally, if this is the level of information you are looking for, you can get the same thing by typing help(str.replace) in the Python interpreter.
- creaghpatr 7y agoFor those who can't see the article: >The practice of creating blacklists for certain types of sites or searches has fueled cries of political bias from some Google engineers and right-wing publications that said they have viewed portions of the blacklists. Some of the websites Google appears to have targeted in Google News were conservative sites and blogs, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. In one partial blacklist reviewed by the Journal, some conservative and right-wing websites, including The Gateway Pundit and The United West, were included on a list of hundreds of websites that wouldn’t appear in news or featured products, although they could appear in organic search results. Gateway is trash and I'm not sure what United West is but they can't say they aren't blacklisting political sites at this point. Pretty big challenge for them ahead of the bipartisan AG investigations and 2020 elections.
- ceejayoz 7y agoIt makes sense for Google to blacklist news/featured results. I don't want "Occupy Democrats" showing up in the news feed any more than I want Gateway Pundit there. Blacklists in the search results themselves would be problematic.
- onepointsixC 7y agoDoes Occupy Democrats show up?
- ceejayoz 7y agoNo, nor should it. It's as much "news" as Gateway Pundit is, which is to say "not at all".
- onepointsixC 7y agoThank you I didn't know that.
- happytoexplain 7y agoYour assertion is a bit literal. Yes, they can't say they aren't blacklisting political sites. But they can say they aren't blacklisting sites for being political.
- buboard 7y agoIs there research on how to create a distributed search engine ?
- whichquestion 7y agoA place to start perhaps: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_search_engine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_search_engine
- ur-whale 7y agoThere's actually a couple of implementations eg : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YaCy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YaCy
- smashingfiasco 7y agoI’d love to see search decentralized and have been toying with this idea for a while. The last concept I hacked together was a custom search plugin for Grav and a command line util to use for querying. It goes like this. Use the command line util to search a term. The command line util run that term against the search engine _inside_ of the websites CMS itself. You essentially have a list of sites related to a topic that you chose to execute the query against. I got this working against some sites and the proof is there. But it’s obviously highly inefficient and I haven’t figured that out yet. :-/
- buboard 7y agoCould be some kind of giant computation machine running as a public blockchain. Websites could provide their own keywords and machine would be used to rank them for queries.
- lgats 7y agoCheck out YaCy
- mgreenleaf 7y agoOne alternative is to run a webcrawler that stores the index in a series of SQLite database files, either by topic or by site, or any other criteria. Then users could download sets of those SQLite databases and run queries on them. Not really completely distributed, but hides some information in the noise of "search sets" and mirrors, and individual queries are run on local. You could mirror the main repository and just run searches on your own server/local. You could also swap the database files with P2P, etc.
- codingslave 7y agoThe American people arent this stupid. Its obvious to everyone that the search results are being messed with. Its incredibly arrogant for Google to think they can get away with mass scale information manipulation. Capitalism doesnt work this way, Google search is an inferior product, everyday the opportunity for a competitor to move in gets just a little bit bigger. But the time is not quite here yet
- po1nter 7y ago> Google search is an inferior product Inferior compared to what, exactly? I have yet to find a good replacement.
- codingslave 7y agoWorded that poorly, inferior to what could exist. Clearly too expensive at this point to show up and compete, but I think the time is coming.
- reroute1 7y agoIsn't literally everything inferior to what COULD exist?
- codingslave 7y agoNo, I think Google search is inferior to what google could produce. By that I mean they tuned their own knobs in such a way that search results are worse than they could be. They are hurting the search results in the name of revenue and bias (political and otherwise)
- cptskippy 7y agoBing is a pretty good replacement if you like pornography with innocuous searches. I tend to disable moderation settings because I'm an adult right? Google does a pretty good job distinguishing intent. For example a search for "<actor|actress>" and "<actor|actress> nude" with moderation settings off yield very different results. On Bing? Not so much.
- creaghpatr 7y agoHere are the findings of the investigation, according to the article: >More than 100 interviews and the Journal’s own testing of Google’s search results reveal: • Google made algorithmic changes to its search results that favor big businesses over smaller ones, and in at least one case made changes on behalf of a major advertiser, eBay Inc., contrary to its public position that it never takes that type of action. The company also boosts some major websites, such as Amazon.com Inc. and Facebook Inc., according to people familiar with the matter. • Google engineers regularly make behind-the-scenes adjustments to other information the company is increasingly layering on top of its basic search results. These features include auto-complete suggestions, boxes called “knowledge panels” and “featured snippets,” and news results, which aren’t subject to the same company policies limiting what engineers can remove or change. • Despite publicly denying doing so, Google keeps blacklists to remove certain sites or prevent others from surfacing in certain types of results. These moves are separate from those that block sites as required by U.S. or foreign law, such as those featuring child abuse or with copyright infringement, and from changes designed to demote spam sites, which attempt to game the system to appear higher in results. • In auto-complete, the feature that predicts search terms as the user types a query, Google’s engineers have created algorithms and blacklists to weed out more-incendiary suggestions for controversial subjects, such as abortion or immigration, in effect filtering out inflammatory results on high-profile topics. • Google employees and executives, including co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, have disagreed on how much to intervene on search results and to what extent. Employees can push for revisions in specific search results, including on topics such as vaccinations and autism. • To evaluate its search results, Google employs thousands of low-paid contractors whose purpose the company says is to assess the quality of the algorithms’ rankings. Even so, contractors said Google gave feedback to these workers to convey what it considered to be the correct ranking of results, and they revised their assessments accordingly, according to contractors interviewed by the Journal. The contractors’ collective evaluations are then used to adjust algorithms
- buboard 7y agoI wonder how its founders feel about this culture? Google used to have a specific role, creating a win-win situation for everyone on the public web, but now it has become a greedy monster having lost its mind. I wonder what caused it ? was it reckless hiring or the fact that the founders no longer seem to care or anywhere to be found? It's a shame really, for such a monumental company.
- chadmeister 7y agoWe should rather be fighting for competitive alternatives and looking more at if/where Google uses it's market dominance to stymie competition. That would be a more fruitful discussion IMHO.
- foxX 7y agoIsn't that exactly what GDPR is?
- jammygit 7y agoWhat alternatives do you all use? I like DuckDuckGo but it still depends on existing engines behind the scenes. There is also Quant and SearX but I haven’t used either much. Surely there is some foss project that has been promising, somewhere?
- charlesism 7y agoI don’t understand why Google’s competitors don’t form an independent search engine. If I were Microsoft, I’d talk to Apple and others to see if they would help fund a spun off Bing. The internet badly needs a big alternative search engine that isn’t beholden to advertisers or dependent on a single corporate owner. The benefit of such a search engine (whose main incentive is to just be a good search engine) is obvious for the public, but would also give companies who rely on their own OS leverage against Google.
- Nasrudith 7y agoConflation of want and need aside how exactly - lets assume they have said niche. How are they going to manage to scale funding to actually provide for it while big? Paid by user search? Discourage curiosity or just using the alternative. Deep pocketed sponsor? They have the control now. User donations are the biggest "maybe" I can see which would be not worse but depends upon charity and campaigning to some degree.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- privacywall 7y agoGood old msn https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/how-google-interferes-with-its-search-algorithms-and-changes-your-results/ar-BBWOCm2 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/how-google-interfe...
- dang 7y agoThanks! Url changed from https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-interferes-with-its-search-algorithms-and-changes-your-results-11573823753?mod=rsswn https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-interferes-with-its-....
- Nasrudith 7y agoGoogle can't interfere with its own search algorithms by definition. It is their design and theirs alone. The accusation isn't merely wrong but impossible generically. The whole goddamn point of a search engine is to privledge certain results over another. The claims of armies of contractors reek of the zombie lies of their persecution complex.
- pfortuny 7y agoIt stops being a search algorithm when it becomes an ad algorithm.
- ineedasername 7y agoSure, you can define algorithm to be "whatever Google does" in this way, but that misses the point: The point isn't that they violate the algorithm, that is just a semantic convenience in presenting the article. The point is that they privilege and editorialize the results in ways they have claimed they do not do.
- riazrizvi 7y agoAn algorithm implies an objective rules based system as opposed to one that changes to the whims of its operators. With a whimsical system an advertiser can come in and ask an operator to rank it up in the organic section where Google claims the rankings are based on page rank. You’re tied to the meaning of algorithm from a developer perspective where you can make things do whatever you want. In the Journal’s non-developer community an Algorithm is different to Do-What-You-Want, it’s a set of high level rules that are small enough to explain.
- buboard 7y ago"google's algorithm" is not an actual algorithm but the promise of organizing the world's information in an impartial way using machines instead of bribes. It was their selling point when they made the site, and their users have not forgotten those promises. http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/ http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/ > Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed. This business model resulted in an uproar, and OpenText has ceased to be a viable search engine. But less blatant bias are likely to be tolerated by the market. For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors. This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Google does both nowadays. Shame
- deweller 7y agoTry this: https://duckduckgo.com/?ratb=c&q=autism+vaccine+link&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?ratb=c&q=autism+vaccine+link&t=h_&ia... https://www.google.com/search?q=autism+vaccine+link https://www.google.com/search?q=autism+vaccine+link The 3rd result on duckduckgo.com is learntherisk.org. That result is not presented in the first 10 pages of results on Google. It seems quite likely to me that one of these sites is manipulating search results. Because the organic search results for these two different search engines should not be that far apart. Edit: Why the downvotes? Here is an even more egregious example: Try searching for "learn the risk autism". https://duckduckgo.com/?ratb=c&q=learn+the+risk+autism&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?ratb=c&q=learn+the+risk+autism&t=h_&... https://www.google.com/search?q=learn+the+risk+autism https://www.google.com/search?q=learn+the+risk+autism Note that I am not promoting an agenda here. This seems like an example of manual manipulation. The article sites "vaccinations and autism" as an example.
- realmod 7y agoWait why would duckduckgo be more accurate because a random site called learntherisk.org is present. This is just confirmation bias.
- jfengel 7y agoWeb sites themselves manipulate search results to appear higher in the results than they might seem to merit, so a naive presentation algorithm is also "manipulated". Any ordering represents somebody's opinion on what you should get back; there is no single universal objective search result order. I have no idea if Google is specifically pushing vaccine denier sites down the list, though I can say that the entire concept has far more "mind share" than the notion merits scientifically. That much, at least, is objectively true.
- scoutt 7y agoYeah, but why learntherisk.org? Is this an authoritative source of information? That website screams confirmation bias all-around.
- jaffau 7y agoMaybe because learntherisk.org is part of the Robert F. Kennedy Jr spin machine? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kenn...
- retrovm 7y agoIf you actually read the article most of the statements of fact are about the omnibox autocomplete system, and then they use innuendo to imply some things about search engine ranking. But these are two completely separate systems, and it makes sense that a system that is literally telling you what to type is more sensitive than the search result ranking. It is not a flaw of Google that it won't suggest "is hillary clinton still controlled by the jews" when you type "is hillary clinton". If it was just a big trie of what everyone typed, it would be completely dominated by 4chan troll bots.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- papreclip 7y agoIsn't the autocomplete feature a sort of search in its own right? I agree there is a distinction between the two tools, but deliberately steering autocomplete carries the same potential for abuse as deliberately curating search results Your jews example is a positive use case but not all conspiracy theories are created equal. Before Epstein killed himself, google's autocomplete steered you away from any negative searches involving Prince Andrew, despite the fact that it was public knowledge at that point that one of Epstein's victims had named the prince as an abuser
- entelechy0 7y ago>Before Epstein killed himself Troll detected
- dgb23 7y agoThe cynical part in me would find that funny. But this also poses the question what the responsibilities of web-search are. In some sense the most qualitative output (including autocomplete) is also conventionally responsible. I‘m not sure if this is always the case.
- buboard 7y agoit matters a lot more for mobile though, the difficulty of typing makes it much more likely to click those searches.
- williamDafoe 7y agoBullet #3: Yes they keep blacklists, I worked on the web crawler for many years. But the article does not understand or differentiate between blacklists for content farms, spam domains, link farms, infinite spaces (that aren't calendars) etc. Blacklists are low level url regexps. In ~2015 some spammer in China overnight created 100 million websites to boost priority and each page had 1000 links. Google saved them all! This will literally crush the web crawler, slowing it by 20000x or more, like a snake swallowing an elephant. Or it will crash the crawler and we'd have to write manual code to cleanse the search logs and add blacklists to keep it from happening again, right away. Blacklisted domains are blacklisted forever, because they crash the crawler. This happens 1x - 3x times per year. Changes here are all tracked and only owners of the first stage of search (who have no connection to the ranking algorithm) have change rights. Bullet #5: search quality is assessed by thousands of contractors worldwide and you can become a part of the crawl quality team, although it doesn't pay that well in the USA. The book they follow is 180 pages and available on the Google website for many years. It has guidelines for how to determine sexual, offensive, or illegal (or child porn) content in ALL countries. It has guidelines on how to rank news source reputation and credibility.
- creaghpatr 7y agoDid you miss this part of bullet #3? >These moves are separate from those that block sites as required by U.S. or foreign law, such as those featuring child abuse or with copyright infringement, and from changes designed to demote spam sites, which attempt to game the system to appear higher in results. The article directly refutes what you are claiming here.
- pas 7y agoHow exactly does the article contradict that? The article has very few specific examples, a few mentions of some draft and "suspicious" discrepancies between bing and google. None of which really mean much, except that it sounds like the typical liberal bias meme.
- baybal2 7y ago> Bullet #5: search quality is assessed by thousands of contractors worldwide and you can become a part of the crawl quality team, although it doesn't pay that well in the USA. The book they follow is 180 pages and available on the Google website for many years. It has guidelines for how to determine sexual, offensive, or illegal (or child porn) content in ALL countries. It has guidelines on how to rank news source reputation and credibility. Funny factoid for you: Google hires those guys in Russia through recruiters and innocuously sounding shell companies in Saint Petersburg. The guy can work for the shell for years without realising that he works for Google.
- allovernow 7y agoBetween SEO gamification, ad spam in top search results, neutered advanced search capabilities, auto correction of search terms based on NN models which are regressing to the layman's mean, and increasing evidence of manual manipulation of search results/autocomplete, Google search is rapidly degenerating into a pile of garbage. Unfortunately their market cap combined with the status as the defacto portal to the internet makes them hard to unseat and DDG isn't quite as good yet. Give me back the Google of 5-10 years ago, and the rest of the internet from that time, not this ad and blogspam dominated AOL 2.0 joke of a net that we're quickly centralizing into. It's sad to see where ad based economics are driving the net.
- sk84life 7y agoGoogle sucks in many ways. Search results are very curated and filtered to match they agenda. Advertise ? How it's any profitable for advertiser to have multiple same adverts on page ? Thruth about Bill gates and Epstein is filtered away..just like hn filter and delete comments :)
- harvestofzorros 7y agoDaa
- stevenicr 7y agoimbo - this is fraud on a global scale [1], it negatively affects millions of users and thousands of webmasters, and content producers that do not publish in walled gardens. I've watched the changes since there was a 'googleguy' and the 'big update was charted with moon phases'. Since about the time Page started pushing things around it's gone downhill slowly with more and more censoring and less and less transparency. Google is still benefiting from public trust that was earned years ago, when it was truly doing lots of good around the world. The lack of transparency about the censoring is a terrible thing for the knowledge of the planet - an entire generation of people are learning truth about life (and the afterlife) trusting google, and being filled with info from youtube. Even the censoring spam filters in gmail are affecting people's lives in the real world today. I mentioned some of the issues with users not getting transparent info about their searches being censored in a comment here recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21487318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21487318 (and how I think more web sites need to put notices about the increased censorship of big G) It's fraud for the all webmasters as well. "Make a good site, we'll find it and display it. Don't do any SEO, that's evil - just make good content" - well many of us have spent hundreds of hours making good content and watching others who have less content rank higher. Is there a blacklist from the time period Matt Cutts was on the spam team and around the time he left? I heard a rumor that if your site was on one of these 'we caught you' blacklists with a certain googlers name on it - you can't get out of the de-rank jail unless that specific person lets you out.. a shadowban, and public notice to do more work to fix it, and whole while knowing nothing will fix the ranking for that site. maybe not regardless - but telling webmasters to make disavow lists and spent that stupid amount of time putting them together - and still not putting their sites back into the top 10 (knowing you've crafted the blacklists / shadowbans and tweaked the algo to push them back as well) - that's fraudulent isn't it. You've made people spend tons of time trying to fix things for google - knowing they were wasting their time and losing money. I'm guessing the goal was to destroy lives and knock the spirit out of those people who would 'game the google system' - those evil SEO people should be destroyed. I'm sure there's a valid excuse - the algo changed - we added more manual reviews - we have this stay in your lane thing, this your life your money thing - you have to have all this other info to be legit - Is that really what the end user needs when they are looking for entertainment sites? No - it's a sneaky way to put down a bunch of sites to raise up the others. Then a video comes out - some googlers say, well it is okay to hire an SEO company now - don't hire a bad one or it'll penalize you - you should only hire one that says it will take 6 months for you to rank. So google keeps saying one thing and doing another - then saying another thing and not doing that. Webmasters should be able to get details about anyone who has 'manually scored' their site. In some cases it's not just are they looking for what's in the manual - their location in the world, their religion, and other factors, could influence how they feel about a site and it being downranked by someone in the Philippines could have drastic consequences for a webmaster in the states, and for all the users who might enjoy that site from Europe. So the one big G statement said that NOT being transparent is the best thing so bad actors don't take advantage of knowledge of the system - well I believe you are hurting more good actors and more users by hiding everything. There's even some recent evidence that telling users why things have been moderated actually leads to less problems: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21513871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21513871 [1] InMyBiasedOpinion - and not a lawyer, doctor ymmv yada yada
- t0ughcritic 7y agoGoogle has destroyed small business with its monopoly. First search page is all ads on mobile.