|
|
|
|
|
|
by GuB-42
1890 days ago
|
|
|
I don't think Google search censors anti-Google results. Not only it is likely to backfire but it is also hard work, there are millions of articles about the misdeeds by Google.
For effective censorship, one would need to first determine that the article indeed is anti-Google and then censor it in a way that doesn't damage the results (and ad revenue) too much. Google could probably pull it off but for what? Google hate drives views, and ironically, these are commonly monetized by Google itself. Anyways, searching "artificial 2 second wait to non-AMP ads" is inconclusive. However, if you quote "non-AMP", you get the expected results. Google seems to have a peculiar way of handling dashes and the "non" in "non-AMP" seems to get lost. |
|
|
You might call that "sentiment analysis". Google has published papers on it. They've refined it so much that they even turned it into a well-documented feature of their Natural Language API [0].
> Google could probably pull it off but for what? Google hate drives views, and ironically, these are commonly monetized by Google itself.
If you could assign a monetary value to showing someone an advertisement (or several), would you? Google has.
If you could assign a monetary value to someone's knowledge about government/justice actions against yourself, would you?
If you could categorize sentiment into something that can generate revenue... or perhaps something that could hurt revenue... would you?
There's money in censorship.
> Anyways, searching "artificial 2 second wait to non-AMP ads" is inconclusive
Let me make it much less inconclusive . The two searches [1] [2] both reveal the lawsuit by the Texas AG which has explicit allegations [3].
[0]: https://cloud.google.com/natural-language/docs/sentiment-tut...
[1]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Google+AMP+second+delay+lawsuit
[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=Google+AMP+second+delay+laws...
[3]: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...