SEO is a scam run by con artists. Google's worth as a search engine is it's ability to rank pages by quality. SEO tries to fake quality or trick Google to ranking objectively bad sites higher.

Red Ventures is trying to get CNET to be worse. with this and the AI written stories. Google should react by delisting all of CNET.

SEO won a long time ago. Google fights a hopeless war against legions of soulless locusts.

For all its resources it’s incapable of improving the situation. Since it only understands proxies of quality and truth, and these things can be manufactured and industrialized, they are incapable of winning.

Blogspam and fraud consistently outrank the original, and changes to the rules frustrate legitimate sites more than SEO spam. If anything these frequent changes increase the demand for SEO, not make it harder. You just wind up with more.

Until they figure out some kinda digital pesticide for SEO spam, the situation will continue to get worse.

To a large extent yes, but I'd wager a lot of sites have been improved by people reading about ranking and SEO as a lot of it is just better incentives for good/bad behavior (e.g. punishing copy pasting, rewarding relevant keyword usage).

The quality of Google’s search results have been in steady decline for years. Google’s worth as a search engine is mostly the value it accrues to advertisers with pinpoint user targeting at this point.

That's part of the Sophie's Choice. If we have private owned social media, then they will moderate according to public opinion. If we have us government run social media then we have no moderation at all because 1st amendment applies only to us government.

So is it morally allowable to discuss <abhorrent topic> online? Should it be law to allow or disallow <abhorrent topic>?

Who decides what the majority of people consider to be abhorrent?

I think you central questions it the most important one, but the dichotomy between private and public is forced. A phone company is not forced to moderate the communication of its clients.

I don't believe parent said they were forced, only that they would do it. And that makes sense, since their desire is to minimize damage to their brand.

There is a simple solution to this if you don't like the way they behave: stop using their product, and recommend others do the same.

Of course, your not using it doesn't prevent others from using it if they want to, but that's freedom of choice for you.

I am all for the free market, but when companies grow too dominant it no longer works, and we should not pretend otherwise. Just look at what happened to Parler.

These companies hardly have a monopoly on internet communication, case in point: Parler is still around!

One of us is misinformed . Parler is not around as a working social media website as of a few minutes ago.

Alright, I jumped the gun there I guess. Last I heard they did find hosting elsewhere because, and this is the important point, none of the companies that shut them down had a monopoly on internet communication.

true but the analogy falls apart when you realize that 99% of phone conversations are peer to peer and between 2-4 people.

social media posts can be a single person communicating with millions.

the damage per unit of effort is much much lower for the unmoderated phone vs the unmoderated social

I agree, its an open problem. One one hand no one elected these companies as arbiters of what is good but on the other society at large is not equipped to handle the tsunami of speech that the internet enabled. Something has to be done.

I never look at comments for Glassdoor. I do check Salary info and leave my Salary info.

Is that aspect being gamed as well and in what direction? advertising higher salary then what they would actually offer?

For the last two jobs I've taken, I looked at the Glassdoor salaries.

The first was right in the middle of the range Glassdoor stated. The second was actually much higher than what Glassdoor said, likely because I was joining a new team on a new project with a good budget.

Idk if it's being gamed. But if anything, I'd imagine it would be lower than what they would offer, simply because the data might be from employees that have started long ago and haven't gotten raises to match what a new offer would given for salary. As well as dated information (someone added their salary 3 years ago, but has gotten raises and hasn't updated their salary on Glassdoor).