5 ms·

> Privacy is paramount to us, in everything we do this statement is fraudulent and Justin Schuh should be embarrassed to have it associated with his name. i'm

> Privacy is paramount to us, in everything we do this statement is fraudulent and Justin Schuh should be embarrassed to have it associated with his name. i'm tired of being lied to about this company's obviously fake "values".

rinchik 7y ago
My thoughts exactly, a desperate attempt of putting more expensive lipstick on that pig. Google is an antonym to Privacy.
tobr 7y ago
Here’s another fuddy lie: > Second, blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant web. I think you could argue that targeted advertisement has jeopardized the future of the vibrant web.
- ignoramous 7y ago
  I like the word, fuddy lie. Never heard it before. Here's a new motto for Goog in light of the current article: "Don't be fuddy". This Google piece somehow tops Mark Zuckerberg's 3000 word drabby drivel: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-foc...
benologist 7y ago
This is just their ordinary dishonesty. When Google wants to actually be fraudulent they do it the Google way, they hire thousands of genius engineers to work on their ad software and then have none of them complete the endpoints for refunds and then have all of them ignore it, even willfully, until $75 million is stolen and a judge is sniffing around... twenty years later. https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsuit-refund-ad-click-fraud-2019-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsu... The question is, does that $75 million of fraud include the twenty years of missing banned-Adsense-account revenue Google paid $11m to conceal what they do with... or is that a distinct other fraud. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/
pergadad 7y ago
Is it though? He said privacy is paramount. He did not imply that protecting/safeguarding/respecting privacy is paramount. Maybe he means to say that invading/selling/violating privacy is paramount.

rinchik 7y ago

My thoughts exactly, a desperate attempt of putting more expensive lipstick on that pig. Google is an antonym to Privacy.

tobr 7y ago

Here’s another fuddy lie: > Second, blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant web. I think you could argue that targeted advertisement has jeopardized the future of the vibrant web.

ignoramous 7y ago
I like the word, fuddy lie. Never heard it before. Here's a new motto for Goog in light of the current article: "Don't be fuddy". This Google piece somehow tops Mark Zuckerberg's 3000 word drabby drivel: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-foc...

benologist 7y ago

This is just their ordinary dishonesty. When Google wants to actually be fraudulent they do it the Google way, they hire thousands of genius engineers to work on their ad software and then have none of them complete the endpoints for refunds and then have all of them ignore it, even willfully, until $75 million is stolen and a judge is sniffing around... twenty years later. https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsuit-refund-ad-click-fraud-2019-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsu... The question is, does that $75 million of fraud include the twenty years of missing banned-Adsense-account revenue Google paid $11m to conceal what they do with... or is that a distinct other fraud. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/

pergadad 7y ago

Is it though? He said privacy is paramount. He did not imply that protecting/safeguarding/respecting privacy is paramount. Maybe he means to say that invading/selling/violating privacy is paramount.