3 ms·
>Most of the complaints about the article are coming from people who know enough to understand that there's no alternative to interfering Except Google claims
by friedman23 7y ago
>Most of the complaints about the article are coming from people who know enough to understand that there's no alternative to interfering
Except Google claims they don't interfere, which is why this is news.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoAs far as I know, Google has never made any general claims that they don't interfere. Of course they interfere. They just claim that there are specific reasons they won't use to justify interference and specific interference methods they won't employ. (The WSJ article does contain some claims that Google's interfering in ways they previously denied, and that part is unquestionably news if true, but it really doesn't seem like the main point they're trying to get across.)
- friedman23 7y agoYou are really trying to twist this in google's favor. The fact is they claim they don't editorialize and they do.
- x0x0 7y agoAny choice of results to produce is an editorialization, barring the existence of an oracle to tell us the one true answer. Thus your complaint about editorializing reduces to nothing but google chose the results they produce. About which, well, duh; that has been true since the very first search result they served.