The real affront to Democracy is the SPONSOR LINKS appearing ABOVE the Organics, with new clickable pastel colored backgrounds designed to get even more clicks...

...only when there are no top Sponsor Links will you then see some of the other vertical search options in their place.

It is still a mystery WHY there needs to be any top Sponsor Links?!

Sounds like the historic "Zensuswahlrecht" where you got as many votes as you could pay for and poor people did not participate.

A company that is a top down structure is per definition not democratic, any product sold as democracy is an affront.

Well, I think that Philipp hit it right on the spot. Democracy is not what Google is, do or enhance by selling ads.

The term 'democracy' is dangerous, 'cause it is by many people just the same as the way stuff are done in the western world, with it's economical liberalism. In it's core meaning, it is just ruling by the people. And in political sience, you have a dosen models of democracy, which differ quite a lot.

So again, Lauren Turner, should maybe look for somebody to go through her writing stuff, and look for controversial stuff.

(Pardon my English...)

Two Google employees post their response to the current discussion:

Raph Levien (I can confirm he works or worked at Google):
http://advogato.org/person/raph/diary.html?start=415

Matt Cutts:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/company-blogging-101/

I always understood that in the US that's how democracy works – the guy with the biggest wallet wins! (-;

As another point to consider, Mike told Boing Boing:

<<I thought you might want to know that Google doesn't even allow individuals to purchase ads critical of large companies. In May 2004, I set up a website to criticize the large medical-testing firm Covance. I bought – and was willing to pay, out of my own pocket – a Google AdWord so people searching for Covance would find my site. After a few days, Google told me that their 'policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'language that advocates against an individual, group, or organization'.' So, apparently HMOs criticizing Michael Moore is okay, but random-guy-with-a-website criticizing a large corporation is not okay. 'Democratic,' indeed.>>

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/07/01/more_on_google_vs_si.html
http://mlcastle.net/covance/google-adwords.eml

Here's a good article making some of the same points, by the author of "When Corporations Rule the World", David C. Korten:

http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/korten2.htm

"Political democracy vests rights in the living person, one person, one vote. By contrast, the market recognises only money, not people – one dollar, one vote. It gives no voice to the penniless, and when not balanced by constraining political forces can become an instrument of oppression by which the wealthy monopolise society's resources, leaving the less fortunate without land, jobs, technology or other means of livelihood. Only when wealth is equally distributed can the market be considered democratic in any meaningful sense."

Great post! That's funny...

Its really depressing that even educated people can so easily misunderstand Democracy and its core values. Its another sign of the "iTards" we are becoming, first consumers and then (if at all) citizens.