[Cthulhu_]

> But what if it's just that Google's algorithm, designed by someone who's never even heard of Rumble, just doesn't like the Rumble site as much as other sites?

See, that's been Google's defense in most of these cases; they (claim to) defer EVERYTHING to "the algorithm", a magic, top secret, unknowable and ineffable deity that calls the shots, so that Google themselves can deny culpability when it comes to anti-trust cases like this. They insist HARD on minimizing human intervention in search results and rankings, because if they allow it, they become more liable.

[simonh]

And.... so what? Yes that is the case. Is it a problem, and if so why?

The manual indexes were explicitly editorialised and pushed their own services, and that was ok. Google is just an index service, if you don't like it's results go elsewhere.

[dimitrios1]

If your algorithm is designed perfectly, without the need for human intervention, and it proceeds to do shitty things, you are still responsible for said shitty things.

[kevincox]

Imagine that search results were picked by humans, and the particular human that answered these queries had no idea that Google owned YouTube and just thought that YouTube was a better result. It isn't necessarily the best result and Google is responsible for it, but it doesn't strike me as anti-competitive or any sort of legal issue.

If Google tweaks the algorithm (or tells their human rankers) to prefer Google properties then it is an abuse of power and something that I think is morally wrong.

[cromka]

if (result.origin == (select origin from origins having max(count) and type == result.type)) priority+=10; else priority-=10;

Not manual, so OK. Right?

[simonh]

What’s wrong with manual? Also if I set up a service like that, what would be illegal about it? Nobody would use it, but that’s fine too.