Google Case Heads to Supreme Court with Powerful Internet Shield Law at Stake

We search for something on YouTube and we get results that have nothing to do with the query.

Those results are not search. They are a means of forcing people to see listings of "viral videos", or at least ones with significant number of views, for the sake of advertising. And God help the person searching if auto-play is enabled/default.

We can eliminate the garbage by excising everything after the JSON key "shelfRenderer" up until the key "collapsedItemCount". What's left are the results that actually relate to the search query. For example, I did a query for an album title for an older band that returned 46 results, including songs in playlists. 33 of these results appeared outside the aforementioned JSON keys and related to the query string. The rest were totally unrelated to the query string. A couple had nothing to do with music.

The searcher's previous internet history, details of their personal life, whatever Google may have collected, is irrelevant to the person searching. The person searching submits a query and expects the results will relate to the query, not anytning else, such as whatever may be popular on YouTube.

Google will argue these ridiculous YouTube recommendations are no different from a web search engine.

What would be the consequence of not being able to insert those 13 "suggested videos" and just returning the search results. Less revenue for Google. Because the many of those 33 resutls might not be getting many views. They might be obscure videos with small audiences that no advertiser would pay to reach.

Google has admitted that the vast majority of web searches have no significant potential for advertising. Could it be that the vast majority of YouTube videos have no significant potential for advertising.