Can you find any flaws in this statement: the better a search engine gets the less reasons searchers have to even look at the ads that accompany the search results, let alone clicking them.

Or in other words, the ratio: Search-Results/Ads clicks should get bigger and bigger, the better the search engine gets.

To make the point even clearer, if the internet had a perfect SE, would you click ads there? Why? So how come Google keep making so much money from its SE?

The main reason: They have two categories and give very different quality of results for each one.

The first category is when their AI knows in advance it won't show any ads along with the results. Examples are when you search something specific in Linux, Mac, Windows, or some functionality in a specific program like a word processor or a spreadsheet, when you search lyrics of a poem, some event in history and so on. In those searches there is a very little chance of squeezing any money from the searcher.

The second category is when there is a much higher chance to squeeze money from the searcher. Then and there you get your ads along with the results.

The secret is: In the second category the search results are quite shit usually.

How is the secret kept? I'll quote from a great post that should've got much more attention by now IMO (https://write.as/vaela/using-the-left-weapons-against-them-quickly-and-swiftly):

"The good results where no ads appear are really just a hidden advertisement, to lure users to believe they're always getting good results".

"…they also apply what can be called "One hand washes the other". Part of the "shitty-on-purpose search results" algorithm is to include results that send you to the same urls the ads will… This gives more incentives to the advertisers and consequently they pay more, which results in even worse results."

What can we do about it, so Google will stop milking the world for no reasons/added value given? I'll continue to quote from the mentioned post:

"… If you mean what can be done to destroy the fake search engine, which is what I assume you mean, there are few things. The first is to give the same lecture you got so far to others.

Another important one, which includes monetary incentives to whoever will produce such a thing, is "Ad search engine". The basis will work the following way: A user drags Google ad to that SE, then the results he'll get will be other, similar ads from the web.

And so, if he searches Google and in return gets results that include ads, he can then choose one to drag into that SE search box. Here he'll at least get bigger list of ads, and probably more targeted, to choose from. That SE can add real results to accompany the ads. It can also "ask" the user what search he inserted into Google that produced that ad. There are many ways to make money from a thing like that. Over time, this will drastically reduce what advertisers are willing to pay Google.

Another and a very simple one is an add-on for browsers. This add-on will allow users to insert percentages (right column) to a table where inside the left column are search engines names. Now say you adore fake SEs. In this case insert 80% or so next to Google. Other users will give much more weight to more distinctive, specific and sometimes just weird SEs, like music, science fiction, legends or weird stories, specific animals, art… You name it. A click for the search will randomly choose your SE according to the % and the correspondent SEs.

This will produce a cycle where builders of SEs will allow themselves to specialize at just a few subjects, instead of trying to contain the whole world. In return, users will have more fun and mystery when searching the web. They won't always need or want to be very specific in their search terms. Altogether you'll get a much more distributed search engine market. "

Q: What does a lefty needs to do in order to climb the lefty hierarchy ladder?

A: Step over, in one way or another, other lefties

Q: Can he confront them directly to prove he should be higher in the hierarchy?

A: By doing what, call them racists, fascists, women haters?

Q: Ye, that's an idea.

A: Are you crazy, they'll call him right back those very things and both might suffer greatly. They could be stamped for life as such and lose any chance of being anything worthy amongst lefties, which is usually all they have.

Q: Sensei! are you telling me lefties basically kind of hate each other but just can't show it, so constantly fighting each other indirectly, by accusing righties of those very things they would happily use against themselves, but can't?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that why they become so extreme so quickly and keep breaking new records in hatred and accusations? All that just so they can beat the other guys/girls in that infinite excruciating hierarchy climb?

A: It is.

Q: Will we become as bad as the soviet communists, as bad as in the Stalin era?

A: Well ye, worse – we have better technology now, thank godless.

Q: But should I still become a lefty, trying to climb the ladder day after day?

A: If you are stupid and talentless then yes, of course. What else could you be in this world (Spoiler: There are also few other reasons for being lefty)?

Q: But what if righties will find out that sacred secret, the one that leads to all those indirect battels?

A: That will never happen.

Q: Why not?

A: They had forever to use our, extremely simple weapons against us, yet didn't even come close to recognize them. Don't worry, it should stay that way.

Q: But just for intellectual curiosity, could, for instance, a white man accuse a black one for being a racist?

A: Well of course kohai, many blacks actually are. Think how they use other blacks, mislead and brainwash them for their own political and monetary purposes. A person could easily hate himself so could, even more easily, hate any group you can imagine, which includes of course ones he belongs to.

Q: What about women, could they be accused of hating women?

A: Never!! Relax kohai, of course they can. In fact, many women who accuse men about women hatred are women haters themselves. They envy many aspects of genuine and kind women and usually are much uglier and more masculine than them, so in many ways they also envy men - for not being one themselves - and thus can kill two birds with one stone – destroy as much trust between good men and good women, making everyone as paranoid and defensive as possible.

Q: And how would you respond if a woman will ever accuse you in such matter, or if you were to become righty?

A: First I would just accuse back, telling her she is a women hater. No reason needed, the saying is what's important. Then, if she is relatively high-hierarchy, would tell that she behaves like a man, that she's vulgar and extrovert like a man – because what real woman accuses a man of hating women? - and actually adore men and try to hide it by accusing men for hating women, but that everyone can see that about her, she's not fooling anyone.

Then I would question her followers (indirectly, via the public/social media correspondence with her) as being suspected of women hate as well. And if she's in some sort of organization, I'll question the donors and sponsors of hating women and ask "Does the donors know about you and your hatred for women? Do they hate women too? Does anybody know who they are, it needs to be published that they hate women and give money to people who hate them too". Hopefully righties who will follow that correspondence will understand and join me in the accusations, but the damage to her will be done either way.

Q: But sensei, her whole lefty career could be destroyed.

A: It will be destroyed. This will at least be a clear beginning of that destruction. In addition, once the vultures from the left smell that potential carcass, they won't be able not to try and take her place, and would have huge advantage if weren't accused themselves in women hatred, yet.

Q: It is very strange. How come this is so effective?

A: Things starts from what we want. They don't start at justice. Righties got pretty confused by their political affiliation name, and instead of primarily wanting to win, they rather be right.

According to the use of the word "racist" by lefties, we are all racists. Any time something against a black person happens and you don't condemn it, at least, you proved you are a racist. Any time you support a non-black when competing or confronting a black person, you could easily be marked as racist.

Those would be great news for righties, if they could see it. Humans can't care deeply about more than 100 other humans, and also can't engage directly with many at the same time. Long story short, you can blame anyone, constantly, for being a racist for million reasons, and all you have to do is pick one.

You are racist if you are here listening to me, instead of donating your western salary to the starved in Africa, or doing something for the unfortunate blacks in your own city. Neglect even one black person and I'll easily make you a racist, if and when I want.

Q: Interesting.

A: The funny thing is that lefties are much more vulnerable to such accusations.

Q: I like funny A: An even funnier thing is - you don't need that theory. If someone comes to your house to kill your family and you have a gun, are you going to decline using it because it's not the right color, or you think it's too early in the day to use guns? You'll use it because it works.

Same with "racist". As long as it works, use it.

Q: Will at least the media be protected from you?

A: No jokes are allowed in this lesson, kohai!

Q: But what would you do?

A: How many crimes where blacks, women, minorities and so on are the victims, happens every day in our country?

Q: Thousands.

A: How many are covered by the media news anchors?

Q: Very few, sometimes almost none.

A: So all one has to do is pick one against a black person, then pick ONE news anchor from CNN or the likes and accuse him/her, time and again, of being a racist for not covering that crime. Or a women hater for not saying a thing about a certain crime against a woman that happened that day. Then accuse the network for the very same things. Then the viewers of that network for watching such racist/misogynistic network. It should be very clear to you by now, don't pretend otherwise.

Q: Yes sensei. But what of big tech, the likes of Facebook and Twitter. They somehow all chose the left over the right, even though it is easy for everyone to see, and at least half the people lean to the right more than left. Did they make a mistake?

A: What world are you referring to? In this one where I am high-hierarchy lefty, they have made the correct choice. In the imaginary one we've been talking about, where I am righty, they made a terrible mistake.

Q: How come, what would you do?

A: After all you have just learned, you are still asking?

Q: I would accuse those companies, their biggest shareholders, CEOs and other important figures associated with them of being Trump supporters, and of helping him all along – before the election and after, despite the results being so obvious – while acting as if they really helping the left.

I would accuse they were the ones who helped him procure alleged evidence of fraud, all while pretending to really belong with the left by doing meaningless actions, like deleting posts and blocking tweets – which only drew more attention to them - for perception only, to deceive us, lefties.

I would mention the fact that never in our history such massive actions against election results could have been taken, and that the only possible explanation is continual behind the scene support by big tech. Giving Trump money and gathering intelligence about key influential figures, even judges, who have the influence and power to retroactively change the results. And like you taught me, I would concentrate the attack at one individual or company at a time, not groups of people.

A: Good. But you can push much further, since now any lefty who'll try and defend them will automatically be blamed for being Trump supporter himself, by lefties and by righties. I'll give you a hint, the right answer is the embodiment of that perfect mistake - choosing the wrong side - left, as far as they are concerned.

Q: I will push toward nationalizing them, claiming they must belong to the US government because of all the damage they proved they can do, because of, when given the chance, they will always side with the right. And many other simple and intuitive reasons, most has to do with equality and tyranny.

That should be relatively easy since, probably for the first time ever, righties will genuinely agree that this huge accumulation of money and power by those big techs causes by far bigger damages than the taxes they pay, and will happily support nationalizing them, or at least sending them to anyone, any country, who is willing to have them.

A: Speaking of countries, our European brothers tried many times to officially define Facebook and Google as monopolies, but always lost to their big lobby. Now we can push everyone here to help them, instead of resisting the idea, as if it's against American interests.

One idea we can suggest them as well as ourselves, is to stop the expectation, or at least the demand that they shouldn't be monopolies. Instead let's embrace the fact that they are, and demand that everyone should enjoy that fact, not just them. And so, if you are, and as long as you remain a big tech monopoly, you should pay huge sums of money to governments in areas where you operate. If sometime in the future you'll stop being a monopoly, for whatever reason, everyone, including you, will stop enjoying that fact, and you'll be relived of those extra enormous payments.

Q: Yes speaking of countries, what about the likes of South Korea, Denmark, Switzerland, maybe Germany, New Zealand. Those countries where citizens grabs their government by the balls to some extent, instead of the other way around, as is in here. As far as my knowledge goes, as soon as we collapse so will they, since all western economies are so deeply entwined. Can they do anything to prevent it?

A: Yes but don't tell, we might benefit too from actions like that. They should stop that deep ridiculous game of honor they play. One where in order to become their citizen, you must get married to a citizen, prove, for years, you're still together, not leave the country for long periods and other terrible bureaucratic deeds one must perform.

If they do, and will happily, and relatively easily, welcome the rich and very proficient people, those will come. They will leave countries that need them much more and hence those countries will be forced to do something about it, like get much better or keep seeing such people leave.

For instance, if Switzerland will announce something similar regarding French citizens, the French will lose their rich and highly skilled in demanded professions at dazzling speed. The ensuing envy, anger and shame alone might make even the French consider whether keep rolling directly to hell is actually worth as much as previously assumed. And if they do nothing significant, well, at least the ones still standing (Switzerland) will have bigger chances of surviving.

Q: And what about the most important and popular global currency, the US Dollar. How can those countries save themselves when we collapse if it will collapse as well?

A: It will and they won't, not by then if they haven't changed the main currencies their economy is depended upon into something else then US Dollar and Euro. Any fiat currency actually, since like you said, all western economies are deeply entwined.

Q: So what then, Bitcoin?

A: I'm no expert regarding that, but could be Bitcoin or some other known, popular and secure cryptocurrency. Maybe few of them. Giving them the status of money should be a crucial first step. Most countries won't, since, well, they have governments, and those, with very rare exceptions, won't give up the power their own fiat currency gives them, no matter the cost to the citizens.

To make myself clearer, let's assume you read a post by a talented crypto employee or entrepreneur, where he complains about how hard and bad the government makes the situation in the US regarding crypto. Then he compares the situation to that in Germany. You should comment that he is doing no one here any favor, and actually making himself part of the problem by staying here instead of leaving to Germany.

The US government is probably one of the biggest addicts to its own fiat. And like with the rich and proficient, when those still-worth-to-live-in countries will completely accept some cryptocurrencies as money, they will draw huge money and talents and force the remaining countries to face an unthinkable choice, give up the forced monopoly of your fiat currency over your citizens or, possibly, everything else.

Q: But is there already solid infrastructure for everyday use of cryptocurrencies on one hand, and ability to store big amounts safely and conveniently, which include drawing big amounts from where they are safely stored, easily and conveniently.

A: Probably not. Not for the average, tech-wise, citizen.

Q: Why not?

A: What prevents your bank manager from stealing your money?

Q: He’ll probably get caught.

A: So?

Q: He'll be sent to jail and the money will be taken from him.

A: So ultimately, it's the power of the state and the reliability of its enforcement in regard to specific, defined actions. That's what prevents bank tellers and managers from stealing our money. Usually. There is nothing of that kind I'm aware of regarding crypto.

When and if, a country will deliberately build a banking system for that alone, successfully, that will be a game changer. But, unlike left-right issues, it's only an opinion.

Q: So back to left-right, is stupidity and inability to do anything with yourself is really the only reason people become lefties?

There's a limit of 15000 characters here, find the end here: https://write.as/vaela/using-the-left-weapons-against-them-quickly-and-swiftly