See, that's been Google's defense in most of these cases; they (claim to) defer EVERYTHING to "the algorithm", a magic, top secret, unknowable and ineffable deity that calls the shots, so that Google themselves can deny culpability when it comes to anti-trust cases like this. They insist HARD on minimizing human intervention in search results and rankings, because if they allow it, they become more liable.

The manual indexes were explicitly editorialised and pushed their own services, and that was ok. Google is just an index service, if you don't like it's results go elsewhere.

If Google tweaks the algorithm (or tells their human rankers) to prefer Google properties then it is an abuse of power and something that I think is morally wrong.

Not manual, so OK. Right?

You align the incentives by breaking up Google. They have no business promoting their other revenue streams in their own search results.

You wouldn't expect a map created by a company to hide streets where rival businesses are located for example, or your doctor to avoid disclosing a potential treatment because it's done by a rival health provider.

Funnily enough, I remember this being one of the differentiating factors that made people love google when they were starting to become popular - "our ads are unintrusive and clearly separated from actual content".

Google and Microsoft use their successful products to promote and keep competition out for other products.

Microsoft got slapped for Internet Explorer, but somehow Google gets away with shoving Chrome and the Android certification program which is basically "you either bundle all our other products, or we'll make you incompatible with Play Services".