> But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't

> But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't mention that, and these gotcha charges premised on something that was never said. I'm just not grokking what you mean. Let's construct an example of an evil Google who decided to start "selling better positions in search results." Let's say they decided to do it using the following method: 1. Sell the first three positions in the organic search results in an automated auction 2. So as to avoid accusations of trickery, they put a little "Ad" indicator by the top three positions in the three top search results. 3. They put a little "news" display below the first three results to separate them from the rest of the search results. This means the user typically has to scroll to see the rest of the results, adding value to those first three positions. Would what I just described count as a relevant example of hypocritical behavior for the company quoted in that Tweet? If so, then the search results I got were the same as what I just described-- only the history of how Google got there is different. If it's not a relevant example, then I still don't understand the point of OP or your comment. Edit: clarification. Also, could you perhaps give me an example of how you think a company could hypothetically act in a way that contradicts the quote from the tweet? If it's not what I laid out here, what would it be?