5 ms·

Not a lawyer, but yes, his case was predicated on that the answer was not good enough. It was a non-answer, and hypocritical to boot, given their "AdSense for D

by aristus 17y ago

Not a lawyer, but yes, his case was predicated on that the answer was not good enough. It was a non-answer, and hypocritical to boot, given their "AdSense for Domains" offering. When using three specific words in a page can get you banned for life, basic fairness suggests that they at least tell people what the hell those words are. Legally he had no standing, but what does that mean for regular people? We can be abused at will because all corporations force us to sign contracts full of weasel words?

michael_dorfman 17y ago
So he can try to game the system by avoiding the three words? The point is, he was in violation of the terms of the TOS. Google didn't like what he was doing, and cancelled his account-- which is what he agreed to when he signed up. As for your last point: um, what? Corporations force us to sign contracts? If you want to use Google's service, you play by their rules. Is that really "abuse"?
- encoderer 17y ago
  Why is everybody so concerned about poor google having to deal with people that could "game their system" ? I don't really care one way or the other about the merits of this case. But courts and legislatures in this country have put limits on contracts. The notion of "Well, you agreed to the contract, so..." has been thrown out long ago. There is nothing legally wrong with the Google contract. But if you want to talk about what's right in a moral sense, then it's right that if you unilaterally terminate a contract, and there is financial consideration involved, you should inform the other party about the termination and include a reason for it. There are limits on contract law in this country precisely because both parties in a contract are often on unequal footing. And that's certainly the case here. Consumers are forced to consume contracts as-is that are nearly always one-sided or slanted towards the bigger party. There's no specific relief to this problem as far as I can see. But there's also no need to sit here and advocate it, either, which is what you're doing. Unless, of course, you find yourself personally benefiting from such uneven contract negotiation. In which case, more power to you, and also, you're doing nothing good for humanity.
hardik 17y ago
The three words thing was an overkill by Google, but in the first place using normal adsense ads on parked domains (instead of Adsense for Domains) has been strictly disallowed since the beginning and Google has been very clear on that.
- lucumo 17y ago
  Except, of course, when the guy called and asked why he was banned.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    He was apparently quite aware of why he was banned, based on the fact he had an opening argument ready to go as to why that reason was unfair. Google should say why an account is canned, out of courtesy, but this guy was clearly trying to make extra money out of his domain squatting, something prohibited by the TOS.
    - lucumo 17y ago
      > Google should say why an account is canned, out of courtesy, but this guy was clearly trying to make extra money out of his domain squatting, something prohibited by the TOS. I agree with both your points. I was only trying to make your first point.
timmaah 17y ago
>> all corporations force us to sign contracts Last time I checked I was free to sign whatever I like. Don't like the AdSense contract.. don't sign it. Sell the ad space yourself.
- rw 17y ago
  Imperfect markets. Don't trot out that tired horse that goes "you have every choice possible, how could you complain about the one you picked?"
req2 17y ago
The three words are known to people who actually look at the TOS. It is not hypocritical for a credit card company to offer different services to businesses and individuals, or even to different individuals, nor is it hypocritical to offer differing subsets of services to different customers.
jcl 17y ago
I think you shouldn't place too much importance on the "pick a link" phrase, since Greenspan may be exaggerating its significance to win the reader's sympathy. The phrase may appear in the evidence against Greenspan not because it is part of a heuristic or a list of internal guidelines but because a Google employee used it in his description of why he thought the site violated the Google TOS. And as far as reasons go, "an employee thinks your site violates the TOS" may be the most that Google can reasonably volunteer. Imagine if your e-mail provider had to reply to each spam message, telling the sender what words triggered the spam filter.

by aristus 17y ago

michael_dorfman 17y ago

So he can try to game the system by avoiding the three words? The point is, he was in violation of the terms of the TOS. Google didn't like what he was doing, and cancelled his account-- which is what he agreed to when he signed up. As for your last point: um, what? Corporations force us to sign contracts? If you want to use Google's service, you play by their rules. Is that really "abuse"?

encoderer 17y ago
Why is everybody so concerned about poor google having to deal with people that could "game their system" ? I don't really care one way or the other about the merits of this case. But courts and legislatures in this country have put limits on contracts. The notion of "Well, you agreed to the contract, so..." has been thrown out long ago. There is nothing legally wrong with the Google contract. But if you want to talk about what's right in a moral sense, then it's right that if you unilaterally terminate a contract, and there is financial consideration involved, you should inform the other party about the termination and include a reason for it. There are limits on contract law in this country precisely because both parties in a contract are often on unequal footing. And that's certainly the case here. Consumers are forced to consume contracts as-is that are nearly always one-sided or slanted towards the bigger party. There's no specific relief to this problem as far as I can see. But there's also no need to sit here and advocate it, either, which is what you're doing. Unless, of course, you find yourself personally benefiting from such uneven contract negotiation. In which case, more power to you, and also, you're doing nothing good for humanity.

hardik 17y ago

The three words thing was an overkill by Google, but in the first place using normal adsense ads on parked domains (instead of Adsense for Domains) has been strictly disallowed since the beginning and Google has been very clear on that.

lucumo 17y ago
Except, of course, when the guy called and asked why he was banned.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  He was apparently quite aware of why he was banned, based on the fact he had an opening argument ready to go as to why that reason was unfair. Google should say why an account is canned, out of courtesy, but this guy was clearly trying to make extra money out of his domain squatting, something prohibited by the TOS.
  - lucumo 17y ago
    > Google should say why an account is canned, out of courtesy, but this guy was clearly trying to make extra money out of his domain squatting, something prohibited by the TOS. I agree with both your points. I was only trying to make your first point.

timmaah 17y ago

>> all corporations force us to sign contracts Last time I checked I was free to sign whatever I like. Don't like the AdSense contract.. don't sign it. Sell the ad space yourself.

rw 17y ago
Imperfect markets. Don't trot out that tired horse that goes "you have every choice possible, how could you complain about the one you picked?"

req2 17y ago

The three words are known to people who actually look at the TOS. It is not hypocritical for a credit card company to offer different services to businesses and individuals, or even to different individuals, nor is it hypocritical to offer differing subsets of services to different customers.

jcl 17y ago

I think you shouldn't place too much importance on the "pick a link" phrase, since Greenspan may be exaggerating its significance to win the reader's sympathy. The phrase may appear in the evidence against Greenspan not because it is part of a heuristic or a list of internal guidelines but because a Google employee used it in his description of why he thought the site violated the Google TOS. And as far as reasons go, "an employee thinks your site violates the TOS" may be the most that Google can reasonably volunteer. Imagine if your e-mail provider had to reply to each spam message, telling the sender what words triggered the spam filter.