> For all the highly paid data scientists google paid, they somehow thought IAC's business in this space was consumer positive when every metric must have been screaming that it was user unfriendly.
How do you get to that idea from the article? To me it seems to be saying the opposite: the Chrome Trust & Safety has been saying the extensions were malicious, not that these are positive to the consumers. It also states that the reason the extensions haven't been removed are anti-trust fears.
Are those fears justified? Given the quote from IAC in that article, that's clearly how they're going to spin it. And various competition authorities seem to very sympathetic the idea that Google should continue serving search results for garbage sites that real users aren't interested in as long as there's any appearance of conflict of interest. This seems analogous to that.
How do you get to that idea from the article? To me it seems to be saying the opposite: the Chrome Trust & Safety has been saying the extensions were malicious, not that these are positive to the consumers. It also states that the reason the extensions haven't been removed are anti-trust fears.
Are those fears justified? Given the quote from IAC in that article, that's clearly how they're going to spin it. And various competition authorities seem to very sympathetic the idea that Google should continue serving search results for garbage sites that real users aren't interested in as long as there's any appearance of conflict of interest. This seems analogous to that.