Absurd. The article is complaining that Google SERP doesn't penalize Google SERP results. Google doesn't index its own search result pages.
I was completely neutral (or as neutral as one can be, foremost concerned with ascertaining truth) at the end of the last sentence, so I decided to investigate a little myself. The results seem to me like Google isn't doing anything obviously of egregiously wrong from a first pass, though obviously I don't have the benefit of the 1.7b queries the EU had in their investigation.
I searched, "price comparison website" and was presented first with this link: https://www.shopify.com/blog/7068398-10-best-comparison-shop...
I then searched for the name of each of the companies I didn't recognize. As I actually searched for Pronto first, I thought this verified Foundem's claims, but I think that Pronto didn't come up as it's a Brazilian site, as then when I searched for all the other sites they came up as the first result, except Become, which was on the first page but further down (presumably because it's such a common word).
Nextag (dead) 
PriceGrabber (first link on SERP)
Shopzilla (first link on SERP)
Become (bottom of first page)
Pronto (not on the first ten pages)
Bizrate (first result on SERP)
So, you can clearly find these websites if you're looking for them. For Google to not directly link aggregate pages instead of direct results could very well be in the best interest of users... but the point at the end of the article stands that the sterility created in the overall tech ecosystem by such dominance may be harming consumers overall in the long term. It's unclear to what degree that's the case, though, if it is ultimately true.
 WSJ piece from Nextag CEO 2012 https://outline.com/n8rW7a They shutdown last year.
More then that, the entire argument relies on a technicality: Links as UI buttons. Pagination uses links for UI interaction, but after Web 2.0 arrived, it doesn't have to. Infinite scrollers, pure JS pagination + XHR that doesn't generate links could be used.
(yes, I am a Googler, I am most definitely not trying to hide it, it's in my HN profile, I just got tired of constantly typing it, but if you search back far enough before 2010 when I joined, you'll find my opinion on these matters has not changed. I'm a copyright minimalist, I favor decentralized, mostly unregulated web, where everyone can scrape everything, remix, reuse, and repurpose data for permissionless innovation, and I do not favor the government getting involved so it can artificially create categories like 'vertical search' or decide what search algorithms should do)
While I don't personally care too much, I suppose it could be problematic if you remove this information from your profile at a later date, and from that point on people reading your comments wouldn't (easily) be able to know that you work at Google.
Knowing that I work for Google doesn't, by itself, tell you very much about my opinions. It indicates I'm not strongly anti-Google, I guess.
Or maybe you’re so strongly anti-Google that you realize the only way to take them down is from the inside.
> So, you can clearly find these websites if you're looking for them. For Google to not directly link aggregate pages instead of direct results could very well be in the best interest of users... but the point at the end of the article stands that the sterility created in the overall tech ecosystem by such dominance may be harming consumers overall in the long term.
I remember when google searches would often return results that are searches in other websites, and hated this. It was so annoying. It hasn't happened in a long time, I hadn't noticed until thinking about this in hindsight. I guess this is why?
Regardless of the validity of the point, it was an obvious direct improvement in the quality of google. It was blindingly obvious that every example I saw of this (including the one at the center of the EU case) were bullshit SEO games, not actual google competitors that deserved to appear in search results.
It shouldn't be held against any company to improve their product. It is in direct opposition of what my understanding is the basis of US antitrust law (that there is some consumer harm being done).
Is the idea here that, for each point in time, a static concrete, crawlable permalink is generated, with a version of the page at that point in time for a particular query?
Seems like it’d be this huge spool of link rot. The common standard for dynamic content is to flag a URI path in robots.txt as non-static content, based on live data. This is near-universal behavior for anything generated on the fly, without the intent of external linking.
Since search results are sometimes related to availability of external content, like whether the server providing the content at the search result is down or not, the quality of snapshots for concrete results would become a curiousity over time.
It would be interesting to see such an experiment, but the resources needed to host such a curiosity, catering to spell check searches, spammy requests, bot requests and so on would be suicidally prohibitive.
I think you’d need a dyson sphere to power a server attempting to host a combinatorial explosion like that. All anyone needs to do is start querying the digits of pi, to produce a spacefilling spider trap.
If you search for a particular model of digital camera, you're looking for the product page for that camera or reviews of it etc., not a list of search results pages in a hundred other search engines that each contain largely the same results. Especially if they were all to do the same thing so that the only response to any search query is links to that query in dozens of other search engines that all only produce links to the same query in all the other search engines.
The thing that should produce results for other search engines or reviews/lists of them isn't a search for a product, it's a search for "search engine" or "product search engine" etc. -- but that is what you get when you do a Google search for that.
A search should never link to another search engine's SERP, because if you actually wanted that the obvious way to do it is to search Google for other search engines and then type your query into the other search engine.
Searching for "<thing> search engine" produces results for "<thing> search engine" and searching for "<thing>" produces results for "<thing>". Because if searching for "<thing>" produced results for "<thing> search engine" then how do you just search for "<thing>"? And if the user wants the "<thing> search engine" results, why can't they just search for "<thing> search engine"?
This is a long article but I believe it is worth a read to the end: in short, don't dismiss this as yet another "top N evil things that Google has done" article. It is a narrative about anti-trust regulation that happens to pick on Google. In fact, given the paragraphs at the end, I wouldn't even classify this as anti-Google.
The paragraphs detailing the fears of Microsoft in 2000 when they were under public scrutiny were especially insightful - they touch upon aspects that the Wikipedia summary of the Microsoft anti-trust cases  do not really highlight.
The difference between Google and those other issues, is that Google actually has a mission, and they use their money to generally do good things. In fact, I'd say it's a small miracle that Google isn't 10x evil. If Google was as evil as the big TelCos or some of the other scummy businesses out there, we would absolutely be having a bad day.
Part of that is google's culture. Not every company can afford to hire the best, and put them in an environment where work is fun and people feel compelled to do good. Break up Google and you get 1000x more companies all gathering the same data, except each one of them is staffed by idiots that leak data every day. Google is working as hard as possible and it's still a challenge to keep nation state attackers at bay with unlimited sums of money.
Let's get real here. The journalists are mad because they work for tech illiterate companies who gave in to shilling fear stories in the 90s. Now they have the jester-as-king calling them out as fake news, and the irony is that it's true. Maybe 5-10% of each story as some nugget of truth to it. The politicians of course have to lap those stories up so they can virtue signal to their ignorant constituents who barely understand tech any better than the politicians too.
Tech monopolies are a potentially global problem.
When Google is the world's portal to the internet, and they use that position to prevent competition, there are potentially huge consequences for all global citizens. China notwithstanding.
Not even Facebook knows you this well. On social media you present a highlight reel and hide your ugly side.
You can't lie to your search engine and Google tracks you even when you don't think it's doing so. Google gives hundreds of variables about a user on real-time bidding. That's you.
Bear in mind our many of our issues with election tampering, disinformation, and radicalization, can all be traced to online platforms. Facebook was essentially at fault for a genocide. Google has set a new high bar for corporate lobbying and revolving door practices with our government. Both companies bleed our journalism industry further and further dry every day.
Big tech should be the highest concern on your list, and you shouldn't buy the PR campaigns about how they are good for the world.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like that gap has been narrowing rapidly. Partially because other search engines are getting better, but also because google has been getting worse.
The main things I remember were that AltaVista showed ads along with its results, while Google was, ironically, ad-free. And Google was also much, much faster.
Maybe people actually prefer Google because for a lot of the results you get, nobody is paying?
The tracking begins at a young age - with kids who uses ChromeOS in school (pity the poor kids who don't even get the choice of whether they get tracked, the adults decide for them). Google doesn't build marketing profiles of students, but they are still recording the online behaviour of students. Even if that data is detached from individual accounts and then aggregated it still amounts to data from millions of students. Horrible.
So normalised has online tracking become, no-one even bothers to ask why we should be tracked to this degree in the first place. Generic catch-all phrases like "to improve our services" are meaningless without specifics.
The case against Google is arguably also a case against the tech field that seems complicit in supporting such unprecedented online tracking. When it comes to privacy and online tracking, this industry is rife with hypocrisy.
Google is also part of the student privacy pledge: https://studentprivacypledge.org/privacy-pledge/, which seems like a reasonable document.
Edit: should have said earlier, I worked at Google many years ago.
1 - Has Google always adhered to it since it was written? Have they ever violated it? If they have, in which way, in regards to whom and by whom? How would I get access to this information? Are independent, respected consumer-protection watchdogs auditing Google to make sure they're adhering to their own policy? The same questions apply to all of the companies Google shares this data with.
2 - What measures has Google taken to combat de-anonymization ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-anonymization ) of their data?
3 - Google can change their privacy policies at any time, and all this pledge requires is that they provide notice and unspecified "choices" to account holders. Nothing prevents those choices from being effectively meaningless or powerless against future data sharing or use.
4 - Even if Google adheres 100% to the letter and spirit of their student privacy pledge, the data they collect could still be leaked or stolen, in which case the students are screwed. The only real way to prevent that is not to collect data in the first place.
Not even close, maybe 50% of the capability. Why? Because no one in my family has Facebook, but everyone has/uses Google either our phones, or Chromebooks (from school for our kids) all the google accounts that are _required_ to hand in homework.
Facebook isn't even a blip on the radar by comparison.
However I agree with your basic premise, that Google is an even worse threat. From using uMatrix and paying attention to what 3rd party shit websites pull in, it seems like Google's surveillance net is far wider than Facebook's. If you consider the possibility of AWS being used by Amazon for surveillance, then Amazon seems to have more reach than Facebook too. But all of them plainly have more reach than anybody should be comfortable with.
I hadn't considered Amazon. Maybe we should add Cloudflare to the mix now as well? (in the same vein of thought)
Edit: wait, you aren't even the person I replied to. I think that person's point, although I disagree with it, is more relevant than yours, and I'd like to hear how they came to their conclusion.
It's just like "don't be evil": nothing more than underhanded, cynical corporate PR window dressing.
I've pointed out previously that critics of Google and Facebook often assert that every word they say is a lie, then use that to support the position that they can't be trusted. Absent other information that's a fallacious argument.
So, with regard to Chromebooks specifically-- not your view of Google as a whole-- what bad behavior do you claim is happening and how do you know that to be true?
I personally feel passionately about antitrust but not so much about privacy. Obviously, some people feel differently.
But the point is that the fact that some people think privacy is a bigger deal shouldn't diminish the antitrust aspect. Antitrust is a completely separate issue.