4 ms·
That’s nothing compared to their ad revenue, not even a notable one time loss.
by classics2 7y ago
That’s nothing compared to their ad revenue, not even a notable one time loss.
- warent 7y agoI agree. There are many people who I've seen say "this is just a warning to other companies" or "this is just the beginning" but it seems like that's always the case. The fact is, the fine needs to be multiples of quarterly revenue. It needs to be so high not to destroy the company, but enough to make it limp and force it to borrow money to make it through. THEN these will be taken seriously. Until then, these aren't fines. These are price tags for unethical, law-breaking behavior, and these companies are more than happy to pay it.
- cameronbrown 7y agoForce them to borrow money? How big a fine we talking in your authoritarian world? How many people's jobs is it worth losing? No. It does not need to be so damn high. YouTube is aware of the warning, and yes it likely deserves another (order of magnitude larger) fine if they do nothing. But arbitrary fines right out of the gate just hurt everyone.
- Zenst 7y agoFor a large company, but it does make any new startup/competition go thru a whole extra hoop, which does favour established players.
- judge2020 7y agoUnless they've made huge steps in their profit margins, it's still pretty big consisering they weren't profitable in 2015 [0] and likely still not profitable in 2016 [1]. The only argument you could make is the immense value of user data Google gets from YT to show relevant ads outside of the platform. 0: https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-google-any-money-2015-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-go... 1: https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/ https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-woj...