5 ms·
So we've an "if", a "might", a "might", and one more "might" with no supporting evidence, and that's directly contradicted by the screenshots in the article. Sp
by jsnell 5y ago
So we've an "if", a "might", a "might", and one more "might" with no supporting evidence, and that's directly contradicted by the screenshots in the article. Specifically, if the goal here was to bury the good content so that people would be forced to buy ads for it *there should be some ads pointing to said good content*. There aren't in the screenshot.
I would suggest that you didn't really think this through. You've decided who the villain is, spent 10 seconds coming up with a illogical narrative where that is true, and then just state it as some obvious fact. Just like the author of the original article.
- navane 5y agoThe first hit he gets is a website plastered with ads. Boosting sales of ads is still a plausibele explanation. "But I bet it has something to do with the fact that all of the bikes they review are sold on Amazon and that every link uses an Amazon affiliate tag. It goes quite well with the dozen or so ads plastered across the site (some of which are autoplaying videos with sound)."