You ignored the Hypocrisy point (which was the issue raised).
Further, the opportunity to pay for advertising doesn't equate to G pushing your organicly earned rankings.
Collateral damage :
Did I say they had to be 100%? No.
The focus was on the intentional ommision of providing a rectification method. G have ensured that a (incredibly?) small number of sites will be incorrectly hit, with no way out.
(You cannot correct what is not wrong, thus you are forced to wait upon G to rollout an update that may/may not correct the problem - and you may face the same wait after correction?)
Content theft :
Again, you;ve ignored the points raised - those being that G is taking other peoples content and using it in a manner that is likely to prove harmful to the originator (less traffic, less conversions, less monetisation etc.).
As for the "disconnect" sentiment - highly unrealistic. G have positioned themselves within an economy they created. Things like ethics and morality are merely inconvenient things to be utterly ignored.
As for the concept of G doing what we want - I think it may be the other way around at times. G decides to do something that is better for the "searcher", and the searcher likes it. The order is moot mind you - as the point is that G is harvesting other peoples content and benefiting from it without permission.
G have refused to utilise additional crawlers.
The reason being they know they would be prevented from a lot of content they could benefit from, being forced to remain as a SE.
Instead, they are basically forcing the issue - either you let them rape your site and do as they wish, or you don't appear in the worlds largest SE.
There is no "or", nor is there an "opt out" of that.+Steven Lockey
I think they are both hyper-/hypo- critical :D
(Though I'm now wondering if I typed the wrong one (may need to amend, TY))
So you missed the whole thing about the paid inclussion in some of their "one box" results?
Or that we are told not to go ad heavy at the top etc., yet they do it?
Accidental harm :
I'm fine with that concept - it's inevitable.
The issue is the intentional harm and the lack of options for those caught in that net who shouldn't be.
Solid point - but why not place theirs off to the side (oh, it would eat their ad rev.), or make it a link to a tool etc.?
Or place it after the top 3 (who, lets face it, should have "earned" those positions by following G's guidelines).
the simple reality is, if a site was doing some of these things (exc. the collateral & self favour), then G would rank them lower or ditch them.
G doesn't like sites that steal content.
G doesn't like sites that present adverts as natural links.
G doesn't like sites crammed with adverts
G doesn't like sites that are top-heavy with adverts
Yet they are happy to do so on their own site.
That's not good.
Throw on the intentional harm with no rescue - and it's evil.