It seems to not be true anymore. I checked last week to rent a car in France for the holidays, and all the cheapest options for small urban cars were EV (mostly Zoe).
Note that I only checked for big renting companies (Sixt, Enterprise, ...). I was very surprised!
According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive?
BTW, the Coalition for Better Ads has many members [0], including Facebook and other big ads providers.
I'm personally not convinced this will solve the issue, but I believe it's a least a step in the right direction.
The criteria is not discretionary. They'll block ads that don't follow the guidelines defined by the Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member, but there is a lot of other members, like Facebook, ...). So yes, they'll block a site which has non-conforming Google ads.
No, they'll only block ads that don't follow the guidelines defined by the Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member, but there is a lot of other members, like Facebook, ...). Note that this may include ads provided by Google.
If I remember correctly, the idea is to block ads that don't conform to the standards set by the Coalition for Better Ads [0]. Google is (as you can expect) a member of this coalition (just like Facebook and many other companies [1]).
Railway systems in Japan and France (taken as example in the article) are high quality and last long as well. Yet construction railway is way less expensive there.
One remark: although I'm admittedly a poor chess player, I managed easily to get a draw by threefold repetition even though Spawkfish could have avoided that easily (and still destroy me). Am I correct to assume Spawkfish don't take past moves into accounts?
Note that I only checked for big renting companies (Sixt, Enterprise, ...). I was very surprised!