[unpythonic]

If you read through to the bottom, you'll see the article itself is just a call to action for yet another service which the author is starting. It's an ad. Seeing it buried so deep doesn't make me feel that the author has any better intentions than Google itself -- credibility already gone.

[wackget]

That's an extremely jaded outlook. Just because the OP is presenting an alternative solution doesn't necessarily mean it was all borne out of greed/profit-seeking. At least the OP's service was built from the outset to be facts- and evidence-based unlike Google search results.

I'm really not sure what you expect. Should articles which point out problems be written completely independently of the people creating solutions to those problems? Cos clearly that is totally unrealistic.

[noasaservice]

Well, yuck. I did completely miss that this was just a shitty advert complaining about other shitty adverts.

[wackget]

I'll ask you what I asked the other commenter: should articles which point out problems be written completely independently of the people creating solutions to those problems?

Even if it is an advert, it's not a shitty one. It presents scientific arguments and is well-sourced. It's about as a good as an "advert" as you'd ever get. Really, what more do you want from people?

[noasaservice]

Frankly, I'm just done with advertisements and commercial "speech" being normalized everywhere, including in articles, regular speech amongst humans, and more. I've been done with commercialism fake "culture" for a LONG time. And the more we have, the worse the pollution is with genuine conversations.

I think that's the real problem with articles like this. The moment I realized it was a commercial piece masquerading as a scholarly meta-article, I have to question all the previous discussion they have. Is it right? What are they trying to sell? What viewpoint are they trying to get me to follow?

Advertising is codified monetary deceit. We've moved long past "Buy my soda cause its yummy", to an ever-present dread of "if you dont have this, you'll be sorry" in a round-about way.

> should articles which point out problems be written completely independently of the people creating solutions to those problems?

If there's a commercial motive to use/buy/rent their shhit, absolutely yes.

> It presents scientific arguments and is well-sourced.

Depends. What are the biases of their arguments that the underlying commercialism is modifying? It now needs its own analysis to see if they were trying to sell me something different on dread or FOMO.