I think I'm personally glad about this verdict, but it worries me nonetheless, because it justifies thinking like this:

    "For the Raffs, this remains the burning issue, which 
    the technicalities of auctions and algorithms all too 
    often obscure. They see it simply: Google, or any other 
    search engine, should present only impartial results 
    that do not benefit it financially. It sounds 
    idealistic, but why should it? “After all,” says 
    Shivaun, “this is what people want, and what they 
    believe Google still delivers.”

Maybe Google should act that way, and certainly the Raffs are right that people want that --- but is it something that should be enforced legally? I could see saying that Google has too many opportunities to benefit anti-competitively from its search dominance, and that it should be split up to prevent that, but not that it should be forced to supply results in the way "people want", counter to its financial interests.