[BizarroLand]

I disagree that this is a nothingburger. I would say it's more like the side of fries you get with your nothingburger.

It's an expose showing how deep the rabbit hole goes on this one topic, a reminder that people with money are using their money to make more money by taking control of the internet, to keep all eyes on them, to lie, cheat, manipulate, and inveigle their way into your eyeballs by any means necessary, and that they will continue to do so as long as there is a penny to be made by it.

It shows that Google is implicitly permitting this system of deception, that there is a financial conglomerate that is eviscerating the corpse of a once-proud financial giant like FORBES in order to wear its skin and work its mouth like a Muppet advertising face creams and cockroach repellents.

If you're not viscerally affected by this inhuman grotesquery, you are made of sterner stuff than I. It's appalling and a powerful metaphorical reminder of our individual insignificance against the power of money, how nothing is sacred, and nothing is safe and sane on the internet.

[w0m]

Your statement is that that ad space is 'viscerally inhuman grotesquery'. Like... Where have you lived for the last 100 years?

I do agree Google should punish clear paid advertising in ranking though; that is a clear problem. Maybe because of this article, but the sample queries from the article now show the underscored links on page 5, so it seems 'fixed' now at least.

[BizarroLand]

I didn't say ad space is 'viscerally inhuman grotesquery", I said that flaying a company and wearing its skin like a suit is.

I dislike ads, sure, most people do at some level, but the idea that Forbes sold out just so people would view more ads is a modern day retelling of the plot of some weird 1980's movie of the week villain right before the heroes step in and save the town with the power of friendship and a giant vat of chemicals.