In their test they had 12000 clicks, and decided they only wanted 5000 of them. So they miss 7000 clicks, or more than 50%. How is that the same result? I coul

In their test they had 12000 clicks, and decided they only wanted 5000 of them. So they miss 7000 clicks, or more than 50%. How is that the same result? I could understand if they found that click from certain sites did not lead to new business for them. But that is not what the article says. It says they didn't want those 7000 clicks because they were from sites they didn't like. It seems to me they should already have figured out which sites bring them useful clicks long ago, in an automated way. Isn't that standard procedure for advertising? Then there would be no need for moral judgements. Of course they are in their rights to shut out sites they don't like. But not everybody who browses such a site has to be a believer, among other things. I think drawing attention to such automated matches of ads can only produce losers. The sites lose out on ads, but the companies force themselves to become political, needlessly driving away users from the other political spectrum. (Again, I assume it is in every companies rights to do so, it just seems bad for business).