4 ms·
The thing I don't understand is why they don't pay what they owe and then close the account down. If Google, Paypal, etc did that there wouldn't be nearly as m
by dougp 17y ago
The thing I don't understand is why they don't pay what they owe and then close the account down. If Google, Paypal, etc did that there wouldn't be nearly as much outrage.
- run4yourlives 17y agoPrecedence. If they don't feel that they are doing anything wrong, they won't pay up, because otherwise they'll have to adjust the way they do business.
- frig 17y agoIt's not even precedence per-se. Ad networks are abusable products: there's tons of ways someone could be making use of the service in a fraudulent fashion. You can't know someone's fraudulently using the service until they actually fraudulently use the service, at which point by design the service will appear to "owe" them money; thus, anytime you're shutting someone down who's making fraudulent use of the service you're going to appear to owe them money right before you shut it off. Which is why they're not going to pay this guy: as far as they're concerned he defrauded their customers -- publishers -- out of some $700, which is how his account got into a state where it looked to him like he was "owed" some $700; there's not really a reason to pay him, though, for obvious reasons, which is why they're not going to pay him.
- tokenadult 17y agoI don't understand is why they don't pay what they owe If there was a violation of the terms of service, they don't owe anything.