Suppose I offer you a view of the internet which never mentions any 'TRUMP SAYS ___!' articles. An internet where Trump is simply not mentioned, unless you choose it.
Wouldn't you be tempted?

No, because as loathesome as I find it, he still moves the market and holds the future of the economy in his weasely little hands. Ignoring a problem has never made it go away.

I don't think I've ever intentionally searched for something then clicked or watched a Google Ad in many years. I mean, it's possible, but I don't remember it happening.
There's an old saying in advertising about half the money being wasted, but you don't know which half.

Ever had a survey from a company that asks “How did you hear about us?” Google is ALWAYS one of the choices. That’s because people find out about stuff when searching for allied topics, or by directly asking for a specific thing (“What’s a good local Mexican restaurant?”) and then clicking a link (or not, but still finding it.)

I would bet “Google” comes up far more frequently on those surveys than “newspaper” or “radio ad” or whatever, and that’s why businesses have rushed in to buy those ad-words, which is also a nice part of Google’s business.

I find Google’s AI responses generally helpful, and see that “related ads” can be a big part of that. I’m having my lawn renovated, so I’m asking a lot of questions. I’m also getting a lot of ads for landscape companies, grass seed, sod installs, and the like. Of course I also ask a lot of other questions for which no ad is appropriate (“Did Churchill really say X”) but it costs Google nothing to serve that up, so big deal.

I think they’re safe for a while, the moat is wide, the brand is unparalleled. I wish I hadn’t put a limit order in at the IPO which they zoomed past and which never got filled. Stupid mistake. Not as dumb as Warren’s 25¢ balk at his original Berkshire acquisition (actuall 12.5¢ but it gets rounded up in the retelling) at least in size, but still dumb.