>Surely, with a small portion of that one billion dollars, they could figure out a solution. To what problem? To block ads offering something that is illegal?

>Surely, with a small portion of that one billion dollars, they could figure out a solution. To what problem? To block ads offering something that is illegal? Illegal based on what laws? To block ads based on offering something that is immoral? Even more subjective. To block ads on offering something harmful? Still subjective, and it brings up other questions about things that are moral, legal, but harmful being blocked. Take a country which is running an add campaign to encourage its citizens to have more kids. Pregnancy is harmful to the body, so should such adds be blocked? To block ads that not blocking will result in outrage (internet only or not) that costs more in value than the ads bring in? That's a pretty hard problem to create a general solution, and even attempting to could be an issue because it can be interpreted to mean that they are more focused on making money that stopping illegal, immoral, or harmful things. I mean, I think they are more concerned with money making, but that is just one of those things one doesn't freely admit regardless of how true it may be.