> But so can anybody else. Google sells ads on their search engine to anyone.
There's no guarantee (read the demand partner legal disclaimers, there's specifically NO guarantees) that there's an equitable distribution. There have been analyses to show that the algorithm has short-circuits to benefit Google products, featured here on HN and other places. I don't have them onhand, but it's openly discussed (meaning beyond being taboo):
> There have been analyses to show that the algorithm has short-circuits to benefit Google products, featured here on HN and other places.
Analyses by competitors who don't like their search ranking. The analyses show a bias alright, but whose?
> I don't have them onhand, but it's openly discussed (meaning beyond being taboo)
That's not a discussion of purposely harming competitors, it's partisans being partisan -- and getting shut down by internal processes designed to prevent exactly that.
Large organizations don't prevent misbehavior by hiring perfect humans. They do it by having layered defenses against it. The fact that the partisans failed is if anything evidence that the internal controls are effective.
There's no guarantee (read the demand partner legal disclaimers, there's specifically NO guarantees) that there's an equitable distribution. There have been analyses to show that the algorithm has short-circuits to benefit Google products, featured here on HN and other places. I don't have them onhand, but it's openly discussed (meaning beyond being taboo):
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/google-staff-discussed-tweak...