The complaint (https://www.scribd.com/document/490433093/Rumble-Inc-v-Googl...) lists some specific scenarios where they expect Rumble results to show up first: the search phrase "dog videos on rumble", the unique title of a video which was posted on Rumble first, etc.

Even so, I very much share your skepticism that this is actionable or even improper. The idea that it's unlawful for your search algorithm to not translate "on rumble" to "site:rumble.com" would be... quite a precedent.

Funnily enough, while it is true that there are some Youtube videos that show up above the rumble.com video for that query, all of them are from Rumble's own Youtube channel... So they are cannibalizing their own search queries :) And for some loose interpretation of "on", the results are indeed correct, those are dog videos "on" the rumble channel. As you mention, I don't see why it should be a string site: filter, if they're unhappy they can delete their Youtube channel.

Google is an advertisement company. They are not giving the user they want, but whatever someone pays them to make the user think he wants. And that's being charitable to Google, as there were leaked internal memos from Google essentially saying that they know that censorship doesn't work, but they will try to do it anyway, "for the greater good" I suppose.

I don't know exactly what they did to their search engine, but whatever they did, it's an absolute travesty. It used to be that if you searched for something long enough, you would eventually find it, no matter how obscure the thing you were looking for was. Now, it's almost impossible to catch them red-handed and prove anything, as archiving millions of Google webpages is really not an option, but I'm convinced that they are for example removing results of old news stories. I thought I might be going crazy, but no, other people had noticed how garbage Google has become too, including those who I know privately and don't get political at all.

> Google is an advertisement company. They are not giving the user they want, but whatever someone pays them to make the user think he wants.

This is plain false. The lawsuit is about search results, and those have nothing to do with someone paying to be higher. That only applies to ads results, which doesn't seem to be the issue here.

It's a WSJ article about Google. I wouldn't hold my breath