Re:Google Squashed a Chrome Extension That Flooded Ad Networ...
by mthoodlum on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @11:16AM
(#13644547)
Google harms website operators based on the actions of third-parties. Third-parties are to blame.
Re:Google Squashed a Chrome Extension That Flooded Ad Networ...
by Someone1234 on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @12:20PM
(#13645169)
Is re-stating what I said above really constructive? Yes, that's what might happen. You may not like it, but that's the reality of the situation.
Re:Google Squashed a Chrome Extension That Flooded Ad Networ...
by mthoodlum on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @02:03PM
(#13646124)
I think blaming third parties in this scenario is silly and Google should be broken up.
Re:Google Squashed a Chrome Extension That Flooded Ad Networ...
by mcguire on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @11:34AM
(#13644736)
"It can also cause Google to ban sites from Adsense."
If you object to ads, is that a bad thing?
Re:Google Squashed a Chrome Extension That Flooded Ad Networ...
by purple-again on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @11:51AM
(#13644884)
Yes. I'm happy using the site with Adblock. I would be unhappy if they shut down because all of their revenue was lost. I'm aware of the implied hypocrisy but I'm content because I'm unwilling to continue using the product with ads. Under the current system I am able to have my cake and eat it too.
Google will ban a site from hosting Adsense ads if Google believes that the site's operators are generating fake clicks. The way they detect this is a trade secret, but many sites have gotten arbitrarily banned after users seemingly clicked ads artificially in a misguided attempt to help the site.
This extension will no doubt be used by a certain subset of users. Those same users may use some sites in a disproportionate number, that could result in people's favorite sites getting banned and losing the ad revenue that keeps the lights on.
I don't actually think this extension is "bad" or "wrong" just might have unintended side effects.