1. It makes sense that the business are the ones paying to get listed and vetted. We are now starting to need those blue checkmarks for a reason, some verification process is necessary, and then serving costs.
2. Why? You wouldn't search by business name, but by need. What about "nearby bakeries" or "pop soda" only benefits the better known brands? Indexing by name isn't the only way.
1. No, it puts people in control of when they query the index instead of spamming everywhere eyesight could possibly stare at.
2. That's fine, you want something new or something you don't know where to get? Query an index. You want the good ol' experience? Go for what you already know well.
If you worry about the people who would never discover anything new, then it's like they don't talk to anybody or have no desire of changing anything, but that's their decision.
What if the “good old experience” is Microsoft in the late 1990s with a nearly 100% marketshare? You don’t know anyone who uses another system and you assume that all other options either don’t exist or can’t possibly be as good. There’s almost zero word of mouth and you haven’t bothered to consult a directory since you’re 100% confident that the only operating system in the world is Windows [1]
Do you not recognize how this scenario can work to preserve monopolies?
How does Apple come back from the brink of bankruptcy without their iconic iMac and iPod marketing campaigns?
And how do you flip the switch to making advertising illegal when incumbent companies have already enjoyed the benefit of legal advertising for hundreds of years? We ban advertising, and I start my new soft drink company, but Coca-Cola got to advertise for 100+ years already. The cat has been out of the bag for thousands of years.
2. Why? You wouldn't search by business name, but by need. What about "nearby bakeries" or "pop soda" only benefits the better known brands? Indexing by name isn't the only way.