3 ms·
My guess (haven't researched yet) is that Google is taking a percentage, and Google needs that percentage needs to be high enough to make it worth while.
by lettergram 12y ago
My guess (haven't researched yet) is that Google is taking a percentage, and Google needs that percentage needs to be high enough to make it worth while.
- ori_b 12y agoBasically, if this is the project I think it is, all they're doing is letting you act as your own advertiser, with the ad that you're running being an empty pixel pattern.
- username223 12y agoGood call. Basically, they can turn users with a PREF cookie into additional bidders for ad auctions on their network (and others, maybe?). $1-3 isn't much, but if you pool a large number of users' money, you can both drive auction prices to increase your revenue, and drive users to contribute more when their "contribution" stops removing ads. One can never be too cynical.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoWouldn't they be basically holding your sanity to ransom at this point, asking for an ever increasing amount of money?
- username223 12y agoProtection rackets aren't exactly a new way to make money. People don't like ads, and Google serves many of the ads, so they can shake people down, and use the extra money to make their competitors' lives harder. Meanwhile, their tracking business is unaffected.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jonlucc 12y agoPerhaps, but I think $1 across enough sites would be fine to me. The problem for me is that my dollar will almost certainly go to one or two of the sites each month. In that case, I'll just go pay for that website's upgraded service.