That's a good point, but it made me realise the article wording is actually really implying that Google controls any other search engine, merely by choosing to endorse it or not.

First a personal attack against Ing for writing an article which they feel passionate about, then you miss the point of the article altogether. Maybe Google just needs to change their thoughts a little. If this article was about Google and a company that feeds the starving everytime their is a click then there would be an uproar. The reality is that caring for the environment will be Mans life and death decision. Though you might not be able to see that possibility, it is quite clear where this petri dish is heading too. Google has missed the mark on this one, that is all Ing is saying.

Tony

Is this the Daily Mail website?

Why are so many Inq stories (like this one) written in such a heavy-handed, desperate-to-prove-a-point, way?

Clearly Google can do whatever they want with their search engine, yet the article clearly implies/pretends that they are in some non-specific way being bad.

Perhaps the screaming indignation is purely for comedic effect. Let's hope that everyone gets the joke.

Rico

im not using google to get access to 
http://ecocho.com.au/ im using http://www.exalead.com/search .try it and see for yourself