3 ms·
> I have gone so far as to suggest a significant portion of Google's revenue is likely serving malicious content, which leaves them very little incentive to do
by halflings 10y ago
> I have gone so far as to suggest a significant portion of Google's revenue is likely serving malicious content, which leaves them very little incentive to do anything about it.
That's quite a serious accusation :). One that is not substantiated by the facts:
https://blog.google/topics/ads/how-we-fought-bad-ads-sites-and-scammers-2016/ https://blog.google/topics/ads/how-we-fought-bad-ads-sites-a...
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoA Google blog post is not "the facts". A Google blog post is, in fact, an ad for Google. Your sources should be independent, and independently verifiable. What Google says they do is useless, because it cannot be verified.
- victorhooi 10y agoDo you have anything specific that would refute anything in the report? Simply mounting an ad-hominem attack doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's like somebody saying "Tesla cars suck - they explode". And Elon Musk comes out and says, "No they don't, here's the testing/validation we did". And you say "Oh but...but....you work for Tesla. It must be lies!" If there's factual inaccuracies - of course, that's a different story. But you seem to be simply saying, "They must be lying, because that suits my narrative, so I'm not going to bother trying to refute it".
- SantiagoDraco 10y agoConspiracy theorists never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy.