Content_Writer - 3:10 am on Mar 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

A bit old worldy, that wsj article.

I mean, I totally agree with Jane Doe.

Okay, so the Google spam phenomenon dovetails with the U.S. suing culture. Both are obviously full of nonsense, and combined they become ridiculous (like the ol' $100/click for 'personal injury lawyer' kinda thing). Lawyers are in it for the money. So are the SE's. In both systems, there are abuses.

But at the same time, both are crassly democratic, and actually do help defend the otherwise defenseless masses, inform the otherwise uninformed.

And okay, so, there's spam on the Internet. Shocking. I light a candle every night, praying that someday it will go away. But, in the meantime...why the beef?

Really, isn't it kinda naive to think that Internet search is, or should be, pure? I mean, so what if a corporation has a mission statement? Exposing irony always makes for a nice piece of journalism, but honestly folks, Google's a really easy target. (They're just so slimey!)

Anyway, all I can conclude from this article is that there's a lot of easily-distinguishable crap on the Internet, and it's more insidious because it's "original"-and-easily-distinguishable, and the author prefers his job writing for the WSJ, and he doesn't like current web economics.

Maybe he'd like portals better. Don't know, he didn't say. But search isn't really going to go away, I don't think. Neither are lawyers.