interesting take, but I don't see any problems here. Conspiratorial hallmarks? I'll try to defend. My comments about ≥80% market etc. are common knowledge and

interesting take, but I don't see any problems here. Conspiratorial hallmarks? I'll try to defend. My comments about ≥80% market etc. are common knowledge and the conclusion is consistent. And my post prior to that is about my observations from a few years ago. Whatever you think of that claim, it is consistent with what is widely known (or easily inferred) about Google: they have top-tier engineering talent that has incentive to get tidy searches sent to them by dynamically generating "is similar to" canonical and trending matches, and aggressively pushing those matches to users before hitting submit. My claim is simply that I noticed Google succeeded in building a better version of this than their competition. I don't see anything suspect there. The interesting artifact of this is that the dominant set of queries becomes a very small proper subset of natural/organic queries.