3 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
  Seems 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 ago
Google 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.

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 ago
Seems 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 ago

Google 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.