Wow... what a ton of BS. I disagree with most of it.

- "Google/YouTube made an anti-competitive move against LiveVideo". Ok, on the face of it (if you believe everything Lapinsky says) then it is really bad, as in "illegal" kind of bad. It makes me wonder how Google/Youtube avoided being sued. I whole heartily condemn YouTube/Google IF they did this. It sounds plausible btw, since they have done jerk things to Yelp or flight search engines, etc...

- "There is child porn on YouTube". Really? I don't believe it. They do a very good job with regular porn. I have never seen a pair of boobs on YouTube over the years. I don't know how they do it, but it seems to me that moderation of "nakedness" probably using AI works pretty damn well. I have never seen an article about porn issues on YouTube.

- "Google is no longer a neutral digital intermediate because they promote fairness". Yes. They do. And if they were not doing it, governments around the world would force them to do it. Also their advertisers do not want to be associated with the likes of Alex Jones and are putting pressure on YouTube to sort the issue. This is the sad reality, but Google, Facebook and Twitter are forced to moved from a "neutral" digital platform to something more akin to a "publisher". People on the board of Google are no more elected that the directors of publication of the largest newspapers. And if you think that shows an anti-conservatice bias, look at who is President of the US, who is going to be Prime Minister in the UK, etc... I don't think this is going to be easy but Google (and social media) to find a right balance where most people are able to publish, but the most fringe/toxic members of the community deserved to be demonetized. Will Google abuse its powers of f//k up from time to time? Sure they will. But I agree with the overall trend. And again, they do not have a choice.

- "Google changed its search engine to promote sites with responsive designs". I absolutely agree with the change. Most people use mobile devices. You waited until 2013 to realize you had to do that? A website that is not responsive today and back in 2013 probably sucked anyway, and it is "right" for Google to demote them. There is nothing anti-competitive about that. Btw, I can predict the future too. For instance, at some point Google will promote sites that support HTTP/2 and not just HTTP/1.1, so maybe you think of doing that on your next "Wordpress business".

- "Google wanted ads on my website". Just say "no". And I don't believe in the logical fallacy that _because_ you refused that is why the website was delisted. Seriously dude, your website was way to small for Google to care that much.

- The business was overly dependent on Google search results. Google tweak its algorithm from time to time. Most of the time Google has genuine reasons for the changes. Sometimes they want to demote a "large" competitor in an anti-competitive move (which btw, I think it's going to get harder and harder for Google to get away with that). But your tiny site that depends on search results... it's just an unintended consequence. Google does not care about you. And if you get most of your sales from Google, your business model is highly volatile and can disappear overnight. I don't want Google to stop making tweaks to improve the quality of results and destroy dark SEO hacks, just because occasionally they happen to accidentally destroys someones under-diversified business model. I am sure it sucks to be on the receiving end of this, but imagine a world where Google never tweaked the algorithm. Search results would be utterly worthless today.