3 ms·
>Sure, I just don't see why that should be disqualifying The same reason every conflict of interest is a problem. You're not advocating for what's best for the
by hueving 9y ago
>Sure, I just don't see why that should be disqualifying
The same reason every conflict of interest is a problem. You're not advocating for what's best for the side you are supposed to be representing because you are also representing a self interest.
- yeukhon 9y agoSo the question is who if not Google? If Google steps aside, who?
- mrguyorama 9y agoThe users installing ad blockers were doing okay
- maxxxxx 9y agoThis like trying to something about the opioid epidemic. It's hard to find money so let's just take money from opioid manufacturers.
- yeukhon 9y agoI get the point, but what's the solution exactly then? The fundamental problem lies in how ads industry works and how the psychology of ads work. Given Google owns one of the largest ad platform, it has the "power" to decide how an ad should be displayed, right? Because of conflict of interest, then what is the solution? Every problem has to have some solution. The argument here and above is driving us into a circle - no one knows, so Google is the "obvious" choice. I don't want to see ads myself, tbh, and this announcement doesn't really make a big difference anyway, but I am specifically asking if not Google, who and what's next?
- maxxxxx 9y agoI think we should use ad blockers.