If some some search engineer at Google has decided to move Rumble down in the search rankings, then sue away. But what if it's just that Google's algorithm, designed by someone who's never even heard of Rumble, just doesn't like the Rumble site as much as other sites? If that by itself constitutes a violation, it seems impossible to make a non-violating search engine. Like how could you possibly ensure that for every possible search, the "correct" results appear first?<p>Google does its fair share of shitty things with search and ads, but I'm kind of skeptical that this is one of them.
I think were going to have to start introducing modern definitions for modern times when it comes to anti-trust. For instance "network effect monopoly/oligopoly" should probably be something defined. Monopolistic domination is more governed by this than anything else today (economies of scale, bundling, etc)
I don't particularly like Google, but I think that the rumblings here amongst the comments about bringing the government in for antitrust or regulating are much worse ideas than leaving Google alone. I like to be ahead of trends, I've been gently phasing Google out of my life. It isn't causing me any problems, there are alternatives for most things. They are currently pushing all the people I watch off YouTube, so wherever they go to I'll follow.<p>If a person trusts Google (or YouTube) to decide what they see or host their content, then that is the person's choice. Google have a long history of unchallenged market dominance because they provide, frankly, better service than the alternatives. Not because of shady tricks, but because Google is a technically amazing company. But at some point they will cease to be technically amazing and sink back to being average, and then the market will open up space for some competitors.<p>I'd love to see innovative advertising models to break AdWords and redirect profits from Google to the advertisers. That'd be an improvement. Getting the government and judges involved to decide how to rank search results is not an improvement. I do not want any US administration, or US Congress, or US appointed judge deciding what I should see in my searches. Nothing good will come of that.
I never heard of rumble...<p>But I’ve heard and seen Google’s auctioning trademarked keywords in their search ads. That should be illegal. You hold a trademark, others should not bid on that. It’s a kind of self dealing, no actually racketeering/protection. I’m glad Europe is looking into it. Maybe? The new admin will look into it, though I have my doubts.<p>If I type AT&T or ATT I want AT&T's website listed first.
If I type Google I want google to come first and not Yandex or Baidu.
If I type Mazda that's who I want listed first, not Peugeot...<p>You can put all those bidders second if you like.
<i>The lawsuit also argues that Google’s deals to pre-install a YouTube app on mobile devices running Google’s Android operating system have unfairly deprived Rumble of viewers.</i><p>That sounds a lot like the US vs Microsoft (2001) antitrust case, where MSFT were sued for preinstalling IE on Windows without giving users other options, that Microsoft eventually lost. No doubt there's a lot more to it but Google bundling Google apps on Android does seem like pretty dodgy ground given the history of companies bundling their own software with OSes.
Off-topic: It was interesting to see that they offer video hosting. However, didn't find it any cheaper than Wasabi. Do you know of a cheaper provider than Wasabi?
They seem to be purposely not returning results from Gab. I searched for Trump Gab, returns only news articles. Did the same on Bing, and returns the proper page as first result.
I searched when I heard he switched over. Was kind of surprised that Google is doing that. Basically returning negative news articles.
What's the claim here, that there's some line of code in search code that manually specifies Youtube to be higher than Rumble? Otherwise what does "rigging its search algorithms". Is it rigged if Google is giving the user what they're much more likely to want?<p>If I search "rumble big tech censorship", the rumble video shows up before Youtube. For other queries, why would they expect some random small video site to show up higher than the #1 video site? The article is behind a paywall, does anyone have more details on the claims here?