3 ms·

I suppose the obvious question is: Are you actively profiting from Adsense? If yes, then ... you are profiting from ... that shite. You must be OK with that

by gerdesj 13d ago

I suppose the obvious question is: Are you actively profiting from Adsense? If yes, then ... you are profiting from ... that shite. You must be OK with that and it does sound like you are actively complicit with it, despite your protestations. If you really think that Adsense is awful and might damage your brand then dump it and don't whine on HN! OK, that's probably a bit unfair because you are dealing with a monopoly with no recourse to arbitration. That's your real problem.

_carbyau_ 13d ago
Read their last sentence again.
- kulahan 13d ago
  “AdSense has got to go” should include OP’s use if they truly believe that. That’s what the person you’re responding to is saying.
  - applfanboysbgon 13d ago
    "Had to go". Past tense. It's not ambiguous. The only correct interpretation of that sentence is they did get rid of it.
    - deleted 12d ago
      [deleted]
    - kulahan 12d ago
      Ah shit, that one word does change the whole meaning of the sentence. Well, at least we brought attention to it over the course of four comments instead of this just being the first response lol
CookieCrisp 13d ago
Classic example of victim blaming. Not the company generating the ad, not the company approving it, but the person who is trying to block it, and then ACTUALLY did stop using Adsense.