What is it lately with people taking a plaintiff's complaint or defendant's response, and pretending like they are proven facts or defenses?
I don't care whether it's google, facebook, whoever. It's silly.
What is alleged is usually lawyer's view of what they want to say happened. It's not intended to be a fact or objective.
You have to carefully look where there are quotes or not.
What is denied is similar - need to carefully look at what parts are denied or not.
If you want actual evidence either way, at least go cite exhibits or attached evidence or something, not the allegations in a complaint.
This is literally no different than tweeting "did you know alice paid a lot of money to kill bob" and citing a murder complaint against someone where the prosecutor writes that.
But this is Google. They have trillions of $ worth of spin and this will probably settle out of court. Guilty/innocent isn't relevant in the case of Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. They operate above the law and we end up with disastrous results. They own the politicians and can stretch the court system past its breaking point.
So I don't know if they're at fault. But I remember Google from 20 years ago who was the ONLY company that didn't manipulate search results. A company that actually believed in "don't be evil". This isn't that company and hasn't been that company for about a decade.
Yes, we're adults and can take that article with that huge grain of salt. But we should open our eyes and look at Google as it truly is today. Not with the lens of what it was as a young startup.
I always thought amp was a power grab by Google. Serving sites from their cache instead of letting viewers go to the original site and then going out of their way to make it hard so that you can't even click through to the original.
Then u have this recent thing with the alerts. And before that, the web browser consolidation with chromium.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718