3 ms·

Uhhh, did you read this article?

• nodata 15y ago
  Yes. It says "Simply put, a real name is worth more than a fake one." and we've already decided that a single real name doesn't exist for many people.
  • burgerbrain 15y ago
    You are missing the point entirely. This isn't a justification at all, it is an explanation. The article asserts that they can monetize single real names. Some people don't have those, but if Google thinks that they can't monetize that, why should they care? That is what the article is saying. It didn't miss a thing, it just didn't spell it out in simple english for you. And for the record, I do not agree with the article that this is the cause of Google's actions.
    • nodata 15y ago
      Look again at the other post from yesterday - the post that talks about how Google realises that there may be a case for not having a single name to rule them all, and that they were looking at way of making the alternative model work, i.e. make money for them.
      • burgerbrain 15y ago
        The article is suggesting that they at least initially did not see a way to monetize it. The topic article is not faulty in the way you suggest.