Because the NYT has finally realized that the tech industry in general and Google in particular are direct competitors and existential threats to their business. This is also the explanation for every other hit piece the mainstream media writes about the tech industry.

I know it's comforting to think that journalists draw attention to issues with tech because we're tOtALlY dEStRoYIng ThEiR bUsSiNeSs MoDeL.

But does this trope really need to be pulled out in discussing every single newspiece about tech that isn't flattering?

It doesn't add anything to the conversation that hasn't been said thousands of times, and it fans the flames of anti-journalist sentiment.

It will have to be pulled out for as long as journalists keep writing these biased hit pieces to push their political agenda.

Critiquing tech industry for all the wrong they do is fine. But what NYT does is target two companies and constantly writes articles that find the most negative interpretation to the point where they sometimes even invent things.

Being biased and running a smear campaign against their competitor is what fans anti-journalist sentiment, not people bringing up the bias.

What's wrong with "fanning the flames of anti-journalist sentiment" exactly? If journalists aren't meeting the basic requirements society has of them, shouldn't there correctly be such sentiment? How else would journalism be motivated to self-reform?

> But does this trope really need to be pulled out in discussing every single newspiece about tech that isn't flattering?

When it comes to dishonest hit pieces like this one, it is the only constructive comment to make. If journalists want to be respected, they should produce respectable work. TFA ain't it.

This is an opinion piece by an SEO consultant.

Publish, then.

The author's point is that although the author only used it for morally unambiguously good deeds, there are always malicious actors and those who believe that their side of argument is "good" (e.g. extreme left and right political ideologies).

The author believes that there should indeed be some manual review for sensitive issues like these. What if an ad buyer bought ads for AR15s or for bulk order sleeping pills? You can argue that those buyers should be caught and tried, but the harm would be already done. The author would like more oversight from Google and those alike before malicious state actors (gasp!) and/or sick individuals use this unchecked power for bad.

> What if an ad buyer bought ads for AR15s

Yeah, what if? It's a perfectly legal product in my country and people do buy and sell them online (via FFL transfers rather than directly), and the vast majority of people who own and use those rifles do so safely.

I read it more as a "here's the keys to the kingdom" and referenced the redirectMethod which even has a step-by-step guide to replicate it. The author is from a search engine marketing consulting firm so it would seem to be almost against his self-interest to lay bare these tactics.