but in this example clearly Wikipedia and probably IMDB are not paying them right? Or is it their attempt to disguise selling out by always preferring the buyable option even when it’s at 0$?
IMDB might be, they’re covered in trackers and ads. MS is a donor to Wikipedia (via Microsoft Matching Gifts Program) so they’re getting what they paid for.
The bigger weight is anything that MS can sell for ad revenue.
They just use the profit amount as the weight and sort descending
I genuinely think you might be right.
but in this example clearly Wikipedia and probably IMDB are not paying them right? Or is it their attempt to disguise selling out by always preferring the buyable option even when it’s at 0$?
IMDB might be, they’re covered in trackers and ads. MS is a donor to Wikipedia (via Microsoft Matching Gifts Program) so they’re getting what they paid for.
but IMDB is owned by direct Microsoft competitor - Amazon.
They’re not really competitors across both enterprises. If they were then you’d need some conspiracy theory-level mental gymnastics for things like:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/defender-for-cloud/quickstart-onboard-aws?tabs=Defender-for-Containers
https://aws.amazon.com/windows/products/
https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en/blog/post/october-2025/unlocking-more-opportunities-for-partners-and-customers-through-collaboration-with-amazon
And finally
https://advertising.amazon.com/library/news/microsoft-amazon-dsp-partnership
This isn’t Coke vs. Pepsi for computer boops. This is about ad revenue! They can partner up to cut Google out of the mix!