You meant BOLD? No wonder the author has that part in bold :p seriously tho i like the article - the www must remain free and google's interference is already

You meant BOLD? No wonder the author has that part in bold :p seriously tho i like the article - the www must remain free and google's interference is already overwhelming. i'm not saying it's negative interference, it's just too much interference if you know what i mean. ads, etc, guidelines, rules dictated and what not. where is the good ol free www?