He's raising the observation that the easier it is to game Google, the less useful Google becomes.
He's not prescribing a solution. Much less the solution of Google becoming a "far-left government."
But screw equality and open access, right?
He's not prescribing a solution. Much less the solution of Google becoming a "far-left government."
But screw equality and open access, right?
...which would of course render it utterly useless to those users and destroy any value it has as a search engine.
He even states that his main objection to Google search is that it is not acting as an artificial "leveller" to change society.
This is the manifesto of a far-left government. Google doesn't do these things because it's neither far-left nor a government, and his request is both poorly thought-out and quite bizarre.
The word you want is "prescribe." To "proscribe" means to make forbidden or illegal. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
What is the perception of Google's neutrality in enforcement of rules against traffic arbitrage, e.g. search toolbars: http://www.benedelman.org/news/012213-1.html ?
Google? SEO agents? Large multinational corporations?
Wikipedia is subjective too, that doesn't mean that they just give in and let PR people manage the thing.
I don't know if this is true for everyone. It probably isn't. (at least it isn't immediately obvious.)
But for the author it is, and I agree wholeheartedly.