> Google doesn't owe any site any traffic regardless of how much traffic it might have received in the past.
If they're going to hold a near-monopoly on search, then I don't think that's true. Or, rather, they don't specifically owe anyone traffic, but drastic changes in search results -- especially when it relates to a competitor of Google's other properties -- should be subject to scrutiny.
Agree, though, that it's unreasonable to expect to come up in searches for "tutanota" when that term isn't even on the page, regardless of what the company used to be called. Before rushing to accuse Google of violating the DMA, they should have at least done a basic SEO checkup.
What is the value of the scrutiny if the underlying story is "You get the search results you get and if you don't like them you are free to use another search engine?"
It'd be one thing if there were a cartel of search engines keeping Tuta off results, but "It doesn't show up in Google" sounds more like a reason to stop using Google than an attack on Tuta.
If they're going to hold a near-monopoly on search, then I don't think that's true. Or, rather, they don't specifically owe anyone traffic, but drastic changes in search results -- especially when it relates to a competitor of Google's other properties -- should be subject to scrutiny.
Agree, though, that it's unreasonable to expect to come up in searches for "tutanota" when that term isn't even on the page, regardless of what the company used to be called. Before rushing to accuse Google of violating the DMA, they should have at least done a basic SEO checkup.