4 ms·

Ok this is obviously only one side of the story and the guy who is writing it is obviously a good writer? He knows how to manipulate the emotions of the reader

Ok this is obviously only one side of the story and the guy who is writing it is obviously a good writer? He knows how to manipulate the emotions of the reader with stuff like losing money right before christmas, which he keeps talking about over and over again even though that is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case. What we have here is, Google says he is click frauding. He says he is not click frauding. The real problem is, maybe Google is right and this guy is a click frauder. We don't really know because Google shows no proof, holds no trial, allows no mediated appeal. As a company, not a government, they can get away with that. But as companies get larger and larger what is the difference between a company and a government?

geekinthecorner 16y ago
Speak for yourself, I'm an atheist, losing(or wasting) money before zombie day is the intended purpose of the holiday, isn't it? Does it really illicit extra emotions?
kjksf 16y ago
Is that a serious question? Government has many special powers. Government can issue new laws. Government can put you in jail. Government can legally spy on you as long as they have a warrant. The accountability should be proportional to acts. If you want to execute someone, you better hold a fair trial and provide ample proof of wrongdoing. If you create a straightforward agreement where only use of your non-essential service is at stake, you don't need accountability at all. It says right there that the agreement can be voided at any time by any party for any reason. The size of Google has nothing to do with it. They are using the same legal framework as everyone else, big or small. If you were running a 2-person startup offering a service over internet you would be a fool to not include similar clause in your agreement with the exact same amount of accountability. If you don't like that such agreements allow Google to act that way, that's fine, but accept that if you eliminate this possibility for Google, you eliminate it for every other business, small or big, internet-based or not and that would not be a good. We don't want laws that treat big or small companies differently in cases like this (regardless of which one would be favored).
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  I think you ought to look into modern antitrust policy (as influenced by the U of Chicago). Google has something close to a monopsony for online video; between this and their perma-ban approach, many would argue their contract terms create an unfair restraint of trade.
hughw 16y ago
The guy didn't write the article to say he was innocent. He wrote the article to say Google provides no human to discuss the issue with.

geekinthecorner 16y ago

Speak for yourself, I'm an atheist, losing(or wasting) money before zombie day is the intended purpose of the holiday, isn't it? Does it really illicit extra emotions?

kjksf 16y ago

Is that a serious question? Government has many special powers. Government can issue new laws. Government can put you in jail. Government can legally spy on you as long as they have a warrant. The accountability should be proportional to acts. If you want to execute someone, you better hold a fair trial and provide ample proof of wrongdoing. If you create a straightforward agreement where only use of your non-essential service is at stake, you don't need accountability at all. It says right there that the agreement can be voided at any time by any party for any reason. The size of Google has nothing to do with it. They are using the same legal framework as everyone else, big or small. If you were running a 2-person startup offering a service over internet you would be a fool to not include similar clause in your agreement with the exact same amount of accountability. If you don't like that such agreements allow Google to act that way, that's fine, but accept that if you eliminate this possibility for Google, you eliminate it for every other business, small or big, internet-based or not and that would not be a good. We don't want laws that treat big or small companies differently in cases like this (regardless of which one would be favored).

anigbrowl 16y ago
I think you ought to look into modern antitrust policy (as influenced by the U of Chicago). Google has something close to a monopsony for online video; between this and their perma-ban approach, many would argue their contract terms create an unfair restraint of trade.

hughw 16y ago

The guy didn't write the article to say he was innocent. He wrote the article to say Google provides no human to discuss the issue with.