Pardon me for using hearsay colloquially. Since we are not in a courtroom, I didn't think anyone would presume I'm using legalese, but I digress.

The issue I have with the article, referring my toothless remark, is this part

>told me that I needed to unpublish the story because the meeting had been confidential, and the information discussed there had been subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Google and Forbes. (I had signed no such agreement, hadn’t been told the meeting was confidential, and had identified myself as a journalist.)

So no one told you that the meeting was confidential, it was, and they asked you to take it down.

Ok, yawn.

Then from the article you posted:

>Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at all.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Then you follow through to see no proof anywhere. "Bandwagoning" as I said previously, on how this other group lost funding for criticizing Google. Then an email confirming the NDA and that Forbes willingly took down the article.

The whole time this person has no evidence or proof of these things actually occurring. Saying things like "it stopped showing up in search" "I couldn't find it in the cache" "no one told me there was an NDA" "I heard Google say the +1 button helped your rank" all lack any ability to verify.

Journalists love to journal, though. So let's continue with this gossip.

I totally get it, I would like to see more evidence also, so this story shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. However, it should also not be discounted as false. Google needs to respond to these accusations and make it clear what their stance is on this sort of behavior. Not because the accusations themselves are super credible, but because the accusations speak to a deep concern many of Google's customers have about the power they wield.

>I totally get it, I would like to see more evidence also

Right, me too. I can't find Google doing anything wrong here. The article was under NDA so Forbes and Google took it down willingly.

No proof of the +1 statement. No proof of Google censoring the article. We have no story here.

Unprovable accusations don't help your side of the fight, though. Even if they hint at something that is true.

It's totally provable though. Whether or not it will be proved is another matter. Other witnesses were presumably around so they might chime in. Certainly Google can step in and tell their side. The thing about these sorts of situations is corporations are very hesitant to come out and blatantly lie because it can come back to bite them in a huge way later on. So if Google comes out and refutes these claims, that will suggest they are PROBABLY not true, or at least very different than what we are being told. Not a perfect barometer for the truth, as they certainly can lie and get away with it, but it's better than nothing.

Google did chime in. Clearly you didn't read the article you linked to me.

You misunderstand, I was referring to WHY these sorts of articles have value, which seemed to me to be the topic of our exchange. Google would not have released a statement on this topic without this article. Likewise, if others have additional information (such as witnesses or journalists at other companies) they are more likely to come out with it.