Is not Google proud of their tradition of manipulating presentation to encourage behavior? Outside the already listed examples above which refer directly to search results, I recall a proud blog about how Google figured out they could manipulate their own employees into eating healthier by rearranging the food on the buffet in the cafeteria.

Given the clear relationship of corrupt influence in our government by Google (feel free to try and "debunk" this one, please), can you not accept that it is not just reasonable, but prudent to be skeptical of Google's search ranking motives?

I mean, your employer has literally actively gotten involved in overthrowing governments in collaboration with Hillary: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/google-built-tech-to-sup...

I personally am generally hesitant to factually state "Google is manipulating search results in favor of Hillary Clinton", because, as you said, I don't see conclusive evidence. But acting like people are wrong to be suspicious is not much better. If I were to make an educated guess as to whether or not they are, I'd be inclined to guess that they are. You work for a company that makes Comcast look positively cuddly by comparison.

The fact that some bad articles used bad evidence does not prove Google is not manipulating search results, it's merely the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy at work.

Let me try to summarize your argument.

1) Google posted about putting healthier snacks closer to eye level in employee kitchens.

2) Unsubstantiated claim that Google has a corrupt influence on the US Government.

3) Google Ideas helped create a visualization of Syrian officials who publically opposed the government for the newspaper Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/syriadefections...

Therefore, Google is manipulating search results in favor of Hillary Clinton.

It is difficult for me to believe that you take your own arguments seriously

You might want to read up on http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman because when you believe that you should write your own version of someone else's point, in a manner that doesn't represent the position or the logic therein, you may in fact be putting up a strawman to try and discredit the other person.

"Unsubstantiated"? Do your own homework on how many Congressmen are in Google's pocket: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Google+Inc&cx=01067790...

EDIT: Sorry, your company hid most of their donations under their shell corp this year: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=Alphabet&cx=0106779074...

Not to mention Google literally having bought out one of our previous FTC Commissioners, who was paid to fabricate "academic studies" that supported Google's legal positions, which Google then used as "independent" evidence of their claims. During his FTC term, the investigation of Google's conduct mysteriously disappeared, despite the staff at the FTC recommending a case proceed. (And almost every other civilized country has opened such a case against Google. Why's the US silent on the matter?)

You work for a criminal organization that uses deception and manipulation as basic operational currency. And you expect me to take your arguments seriously?

I think I can help clear up one point here at least. You confused Shell Corporation with Holding Company. There is nothing "shell" about a multinational conglomerate.

As to your other points, I'll refer you to my original post.

Nothing you posted adequately contests anything stated here. The difference between Alphabet being a shell corp or a holding company by definition is almost meaningless since everything that isn't Google is a hilarious failure. If anything it seems designed to shield Google's reputation from all their failing projects, but most nobody is buying it.