Google is a great example of "it's difficult to get someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on not understanding it".
Even before google was founded and the founders discussed how they could monetize their search, they understood that paid ads create a conflict of interest: the point of search which is to to return the most relevant results, but the incentive in paid ads is to return the best paying ads. One of their papers contains this point _in writing_.
However, every single time I pointed this out to a person working at google they immediately jump into Olympic level acrobatics to explain why the two things are not in conflict. I especially enjoy hearing the argument that in a free market the most relevant advertiser also happens be the one who can afford to pay the most. I've never worked at Google, but I would bet that part of their induction is to train their employees how to combat these ideas.
Even before google was founded and the founders discussed how they could monetize their search, they understood that paid ads create a conflict of interest: the point of search which is to to return the most relevant results, but the incentive in paid ads is to return the best paying ads. One of their papers contains this point _in writing_.
However, every single time I pointed this out to a person working at google they immediately jump into Olympic level acrobatics to explain why the two things are not in conflict. I especially enjoy hearing the argument that in a free market the most relevant advertiser also happens be the one who can afford to pay the most. I've never worked at Google, but I would bet that part of their induction is to train their employees how to combat these ideas.
Anyway big picture google isn't one of the worst.