4 ms·

This is disgusting--plain and simple. Not only is this an obvious abuse of the judicial system, but it is a valuable insight into the real attitude of Google HQ

by ABrandt 17y ago

This is disgusting--plain and simple. Not only is this an obvious abuse of the judicial system, but it is a valuable insight into the real attitude of Google HQ. I'm taking my personal data elsewhere. Its been bung, Google. EDIT: I understand the implications for a domain-squatting precedent here, but the tactics used by Google are still inexcusable. As a company as influential and powerful as they are, they have an unwritten obligation to treat their customers with respect. What the author of this post did was wrong (note: I am not the author, blhack's reply is not directed towards me). With all of the data Google has at its disposal, however, how difficult is it to give the man a straight answer when he asks for it? Our society is in a constant battle against corporate greed and the evil that it brings. The last thing we need is Google leading the way with this despicable behavior (selling term papers? really??).

blhack 17y ago
Have you read the backstory for this? I know the guy that did this posts here. So this is to him: I am calling you out. What you did was wrong. As a geek you should know this. People that squat on domains hoping that people typo a URL and land on your page covered in ads is a cancer on the DNS. NOT ONLY is it a cancer on the DNS, it steals money from people who are legitimately trying to promote their own products. I have a little social news website that my friends and I post on. Yeah it is tiny, yeah it is worthless, yeah it is probably a complete and total mess of code that is wide open to any number of vulnerabilites, but you know what? It's my baby. I'm broke. I'll admit that. I don't make a lot of money. But ONCE, I decided to splurge a little bit on some google ads. Yeah, it was $50, yeah it was stupid and pointless and I'm not going to recoup it, but this is my hobby and I think it's fun. I cannot even imagine how absolutely blindingly infuriated (not to mention heartbroken) I would have been if I would have found out that this small ammount of money that I decided to "invest" in my little project had been squandered on some asshole leeching money from people with a landing page. Those clicks are expensive. That $700 or whatever you earned came from people like ME. You violated their terms of service and you deserved everything that you got as a result of it. I know we're supposed to be civil here, but honestly man, fuck you. What you did was very barely (if at all) above a pyramid scheme.
- chwahoo 17y ago
  Yes, domain squatting sucks and the writer should follow google's TOS. Further, I don't disagree that he should have lost this case. Now just because he didn't have content on the site doesn't mean that he was squatting - he may have had future plans for the domain. But I agree the advertisers should not be charged for ads that were not presented as they should have been. That said, I think a ban from adsense for a single infraction without a means for appeal or feedback is a scary prospect for legitimate users who may make a small mistake from time to time. This sequence of events would make me think twice about building a business based on this model.
  - Hexstream 17y ago
    "Now just because he didn't have content on the site doesn't mean that he was squatting - he may have had future plans for the domain." Oh please. That's just too easy. "Hey, I'm doing something harmful, pointless, illegal and unsavory... but I have plans to do something less shitty some day! Give me a free pass. What can I get away with today?..."
    - chwahoo 17y ago
      I clearly missed something - is it really that "harmful, pointless, illegal and unsavory" to have a domain that's not in use showing an ad? Yes, it's a misuse of adwords, but he could have used a more appropriate ad service. I doubt he's a squatter since 1. it sounds like he's only doing this on one domain and 2. the domain was related to his company name and wasn't some other company's name (correct me if I'm wrong here) or a misspelling. In the article, he says his company is "think" and the link was related to that. To me, this is not squatting.
- GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
  Meh. I have no sympathy. You've got no money to pay for an attractive domain name so you think I should just give you mine and I'm a bad guy because I'm making a few bucks waiting for a buyer who's got his shit together? Sorry, no. Sucks to be you.
thomaspaine 17y ago
Link to the HN discussion on the original story: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=505255 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=505255 Also, you might feel less sorry for Aaron Greenspan when you find out that he's the one who sued facebook for trademark infringement.
anigbrowl 17y ago
Although you raise some valid questions, a legal staffer's 'low blow' in a court is not commensurate with the policy of the company. Our adversarial court system unfortunately rewards such tactics, and it's not like there was a board meeting in Mountain View to establish the paralegal's courtroom decision tree.

by ABrandt 17y ago

blhack 17y ago

Have you read the backstory for this? I know the guy that did this posts here. So this is to him: I am calling you out. What you did was wrong. As a geek you should know this. People that squat on domains hoping that people typo a URL and land on your page covered in ads is a cancer on the DNS. NOT ONLY is it a cancer on the DNS, it steals money from people who are legitimately trying to promote their own products. I have a little social news website that my friends and I post on. Yeah it is tiny, yeah it is worthless, yeah it is probably a complete and total mess of code that is wide open to any number of vulnerabilites, but you know what? It's my baby. I'm broke. I'll admit that. I don't make a lot of money. But ONCE, I decided to splurge a little bit on some google ads. Yeah, it was $50, yeah it was stupid and pointless and I'm not going to recoup it, but this is my hobby and I think it's fun. I cannot even imagine how absolutely blindingly infuriated (not to mention heartbroken) I would have been if I would have found out that this small ammount of money that I decided to "invest" in my little project had been squandered on some asshole leeching money from people with a landing page. Those clicks are expensive. That $700 or whatever you earned came from people like ME. You violated their terms of service and you deserved everything that you got as a result of it. I know we're supposed to be civil here, but honestly man, fuck you. What you did was very barely (if at all) above a pyramid scheme.

chwahoo 17y ago
Yes, domain squatting sucks and the writer should follow google's TOS. Further, I don't disagree that he should have lost this case. Now just because he didn't have content on the site doesn't mean that he was squatting - he may have had future plans for the domain. But I agree the advertisers should not be charged for ads that were not presented as they should have been. That said, I think a ban from adsense for a single infraction without a means for appeal or feedback is a scary prospect for legitimate users who may make a small mistake from time to time. This sequence of events would make me think twice about building a business based on this model.
- Hexstream 17y ago
  "Now just because he didn't have content on the site doesn't mean that he was squatting - he may have had future plans for the domain." Oh please. That's just too easy. "Hey, I'm doing something harmful, pointless, illegal and unsavory... but I have plans to do something less shitty some day! Give me a free pass. What can I get away with today?..."
  - chwahoo 17y ago
    I clearly missed something - is it really that "harmful, pointless, illegal and unsavory" to have a domain that's not in use showing an ad? Yes, it's a misuse of adwords, but he could have used a more appropriate ad service. I doubt he's a squatter since 1. it sounds like he's only doing this on one domain and 2. the domain was related to his company name and wasn't some other company's name (correct me if I'm wrong here) or a misspelling. In the article, he says his company is "think" and the link was related to that. To me, this is not squatting.
GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
Meh. I have no sympathy. You've got no money to pay for an attractive domain name so you think I should just give you mine and I'm a bad guy because I'm making a few bucks waiting for a buyer who's got his shit together? Sorry, no. Sucks to be you.

thomaspaine 17y ago

Link to the HN discussion on the original story: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=505255 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=505255 Also, you might feel less sorry for Aaron Greenspan when you find out that he's the one who sued facebook for trademark infringement.

anigbrowl 17y ago

Although you raise some valid questions, a legal staffer's 'low blow' in a court is not commensurate with the policy of the company. Our adversarial court system unfortunately rewards such tactics, and it's not like there was a board meeting in Mountain View to establish the paralegal's courtroom decision tree.