3 ms·
> Despite the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that do advertise successfully on these search engines? In other words: The existence of hundreds of th
by josefx 5y ago
> Despite the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that do advertise successfully on these search engines?
In other words: The existence of hundreds of thousands of happy white people make it unlikely that a black guy could get targeted by two racists. Clearly cop A who allegedly broke his right leg and cop B who allegedly broke his left leg are to be found not guilty asap so they wont have to miss their biweekly KKK meetup. /s
The most hilarious part about the comment is the implication that the greats of silicon valley haven't been repeatedly caught in various shady backroom dealings meant to enrich themselves at the cost of literally everyone else on the planet.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoI don't understand how preventing this business from giving Google money is meant to enrich Google? It's fine to suggest a nefarious scheme here, but surely we need to choose one more complex than raw profit, since it seems like Google and MS are declining to profit from specifically this company, right? Also, FWIW, I have found that it doesn't usually go over well to compare my non-civil rights struggle with civil rights struggles. It just . . . you know, it implies a level of injustice that simply isn't supportable and it doesn't come off right. Just my 2c.
- josefx 5y ago> I don't understand how preventing this business from giving Google money is meant to enrich Google? The effects do not always have to be immediate, Google once got caught reducing its labor pool by agreeing not to hire from the competition. At first glance you would think that less workers would result in higher wages when it actually fucked over the workers a dozen times harder because they could no longer get alternative jobs in the area.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoSeems like a stretch tbh. I cannot think of a way that banning or not banning a small budget tracking company will materially affect the top line for the better.
- jfengel 5y agoGoogle also has an interest in preventing fraudulent ads. While the Internet is never going to be "safe", Google does want to avoid having customers actively avoid clicking on ads out of fear. So they've got a (haphazard, ham-fisted, obscure) mechanism for removing stuff they consider undesirable. It costs them money, but they hope the balance is positive by keeping their reputation up. That mechanism has both false positives and false negatives (as well as being flagrantly subjective), because it's far, far, far too much for them to examine each case closely. It may be your lifeline, but to them it's just another $10e2 in a $10e11 revenue stream.