161–170 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then they can't win. An accusation has been made, they've refuted the claims with a response, response is dismissed as a PR shield. What are they going to do?
They could stop doing business with a company that has strong links to IDF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... I'll rag on Google's poor support as much as the next guy, but only when it's warranted. ProtonMail and anyone else that gets delisted / what-have-you is not Google's client and shouldn't expect first-class support for things like this.
It is not about the right to appear in Google's search results. It is about abusing market dominance to put competing businesses at disadvantage. There are also other running/solved cases/investigations against Google. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf... http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?fusea...
are we going to use the IE solution, but instead now force it on providers whom you have to voluntarily choose over another to provide selected results? who gets to choose who appears?
"Google's search results should contain exactly what I personally think they should in every case," said the HN commentator. "But they mustn't be personalized," said his boon companion. "Oh no, personalization is Evil." They nodded in agreement and upvoted each other's comments.
I find it very, very hard to believe that HN readers would vote such a comment to the top.
Search is now as vital to the Internet as DNS. As such, having it be run by an unregulated, for-profit monopoly is looking less and less acceptable. As a minimum remedy, Google should probably establish a defined email address or web site where complaints like this are answered within 24 hours by a human. It's not like they can't afford it, and it might hold off full-on regulation of their activities a while longer.
- The spam-support-call volume is too high and the hotline becomes so clogged that users with legitimate complaints don't even bother. As in, a ratio of 1000 SEO assholes to 1 user, 10 hour hold times, etc.
- The hotline is so thoroughly staffed that this becomes the "new SEO" technique (think: robocalls to improve rankings, or contracting firms of humans in $cheap_location to make calls on the SEO person's behalf). Even if legitimate complaints are addressed in the process, the rest of the search results become even more spammy.
- The hotline operators develop an intensely high suspicion threshold for any requests to change a site's appearance in rankings. It becomes known by users with legitimate complaints as a near-impossible uphill battle to get their position back, and is not used by many.
Don't depend on search for people to find your product. Just like you do not include vesting when comparing salaries between startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Christina Hoff Sommers, Dave Rubin, Prager University, all of their content is delisted and demonetized on Youtube. Non of them is illegal content.
But it's available? Seems like your comparison with Tienanmen Square falls a little flat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Google's recommended way of reporting a problem is to post on a forum that Google themselves don't officially read (or promise any kind of response)? Do you understand why some people might not think that's a satisfactory solution?
It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... I'll rag on Google's poor support as much as the next guy, but only when it's warranted. ProtonMail and anyone else that gets delisted / what-have-you is not Google's client and shouldn't expect first-class support for things like this.
this is quite baffling. tech companies are making money hand over fist, they have massive margins, a company like google can afford real support and if they dont think so they should pay in court
If you plot this over time and see a sudden drop you know Google has identified you as a threat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not about the right to appear in Google's search results. It is about abusing market dominance to put competing businesses at disadvantage. There are also other running/solved cases/investigations against Google. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf... http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?fusea...
it only is abusing if they push their products before others, if you fail to rank highly in search results whose fault is that? are we going to use the IE solution, but instead now force it on providers whom you have to voluntarily choose over another to provide selected results? who gets to choose who appears?
Well, if that failure to rank highly is due to Google manually removing you, I think it's fairly clear whose fault it is.
(It's Google's.)
"Google's search results should contain exactly what I personally think they should in every case," said the HN commentator. "But they mustn't be personalized," said his boon companion. "Oh no, personalization is Evil." They nodded in agreement and upvoted each other's comments.
Google's PR monkeys hard at work I see! I find it very, very hard to believe that HN readers would vote such a comment to the top.