4 ms·
Not a Googler, but two guesses: 1. No Googler here knows the answer to your question, because something this big is decided way up the chain. Furthermore, due
by Adverblessly 3y ago
Not a Googler, but two guesses:
1. No Googler here knows the answer to your question, because something this big is decided way up the chain. Furthermore, due to the huge backlash for such a move, I assume most Googlers would be against such a move, so it will only come to pass if forced by top management.
2. Your account is worth more to Google when you are using it, since they can better target ads at you, so disabling an account is something they want to avoid. I'm guessing they don't think it is profitable for them to disable an account that blocks ads on YT. Remember that even if you are blocking ads on YT, you might still see Google Ads elsewhere, for example on your Android device. They might just not show you the videos though?
- jeffbee 3y ago> something this big is decided way up the chain Not in my experience. Not even remotely true. Nobody above the level of the team of ICs writing the account abuse rules knows how it works or why. Not their manager, certainly not their director, undoubtedly not their VP or SVP. The team would have OKRs around high-level account abuse outcomes such as known stolen accounts, lockout false/true positive rates, etc.
- Adverblessly 3y agoWhat you are describing definitely matches my experience, but IMO a rule like "blocks ads on YT -> disabled" is a rule that could never come from the ICs on the ground since it isn't the sort of abuse they are looking for. That is, unless there's an order from above to treat blocking ads as abuse that warrants blocking.