Not sure this is better, but if they don’t pay, most of the first page will instead point to random unrelated competitors and the search result will become visually harder to find. It is basically legalized mafia tactics (“you’ve got a nice business, shame if something were to happen to it if you don’t pay up”) since supposedly you could pay someone else to SEO the site and achieve the same result without just buying ads

You're exactly right that this is mafia tactics. Clearly people are buying into it to

It would be a shame if someone else got the top result

  >> When making more money requires degrading the product you know we've fucked up

It’s basically a guaranteed way to get your term into the first rank. When people run a simple keyword search without intending to visit the site itself, for example when eBay is caught in a scandal and you’re curious, you type “eBay” expecting a news link somewhere on the first page. That and mafia-esque protection money basically

A lot of big tech behaviour, is very much like mafia behaviour. I always use that description, when people asks me what cloudflare does or how the spam network works. They sell both the problem and the solution and the most unfilterable spam always comes from those aggressively filtering legitimate stuff out (Gmail, Outlook).

This is not done by the search engine - eBay purposely bids to be the top ad for the search term “eBay”. It’s called cannibalization. They’re more willing to pay for the impression and potential click through than they are willing to give up the ad space to a competitor.

See my comment sidethread. It's nice when the facts you assert to support your position are, you know, true.

eBay was an example from the parent, insert whatever brand you want. It’s still called cannibalization and it’s something companies have stopped doing because they don’t see great results

  > This is not done by the search engine - eBay purposely bids

Bullshit. The bidding doesn't happen without the search engine. It is the choice in the search engine design, and how it incorporates bidding that creates the issue. The bidding can't exist without the search engine, but the search engine can exist without the bidding.

> And let's not forget, these are the same people that when searching for "eBay" will put an ad at the top of the results, linking to eBay, and then place eBay as the top search result.

Do you see an ad when you search for ebay? I don't.

eBay stopped paying for placement on the term "ebay" more than a decade ago, and I believe the executive who made that call got a bonus. It's possible of course that they changed their mind later, but since there still isn't an ad on the term today, I suspect they didn't.

(Methodology: I opened Microsoft Edge, where I have no addons or adblocking or anything installed, went to google.com, and searched for "ebay". There are no ads in the results panel. There is a sidebar with some non-sponsored information provided; below that sidebar is a section saying "people also search for" that mentions Etsy, Shopify, Poshmark, and Mercari. That section isn't sponsored either.

As a point of comparison, I also searched for "mortgage loans". (Same window, new tab, google.com.) On that search, there is no informational sidebar, and the results panel begins with a section called "Sponsored Results" which occupies the entire vertical extent of the browser window. (And consists of all of four links, with blurbs.) Below the sponsored results is the AI overview, and below that are the genuine results.)

I don't on that exact search but I do see it when I try this in the iPhone App Store. I do also see it on my Android when searching the Playstore.

It was an example. You're getting lost in the weeds. Similar to this saying BuT sOmEoNe ElSe WiLl GeT tHe ToP sPoT

>But why the fuck should any company pay for an ad when the user explicitly searched for their product?

If you don't buy out the top-place for the query, someone else will. In a better case a competitor - imagine Facebook Marketplace being the top result for "ebay". In the worst - a phishing site. The latter happens quite often for software searches.

Right, but that's because Google permits that. OP is saying Google should simply stop permitting advertising over the real answer.

Why would Google give themselves less money?

It should be illegal to mislead the users like this. The search terms weren't generic and didn't match anything.

Let me repeat myself

  >>>> When making more money requires degrading the product you know we've fucked up

That just sounds like business to me. You do whatever makes money.

This is called enshittification. Business behaves like with with the lack of regulations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41277484

Maybe it is today, but that's not how it's always been. The idea is that competition means the best product wins. But there's a lot it ways to degrade competition, not just monopolization. We're living in a lemon economy

There's never been any rule that the best product wins. Trivial example if I make RAM chips and give them away for free I'll lose.

There's a lot of reasons, but it's probably how Google makes most of their money - brand names end up being high value ad targets - at least 6+ years ago when I worked in that sphere of things (ecommerce, primarily). It's legit extortion.

I guess that's why - because extortion is immoral. Eventually, those paying the protection fees will eventually find someone better to pay or will stop paying when the protection doesn't show up.

Well because you are not paying for ads.

You are paying rent. Alphabet and Meta own all the real estate of the web, and you have to pay them rent to survive.