This Should Be Illegal
- Thread starter 0_00_0
- Start date
- Mar 21, 2013
- 24,760
- 31,551
I have a better idea, let's cut all the unnecessary middle steps. Gov nationalizes Google and pays you a direct dividend. Sit back, relax and let the money chimes in. That should work!
I know where you're going, we've had this conversation before
But nope, this isn't about statization. This is about keeping the market healthy. Standard Oil was broken, AT&T was broken and now it's Google's turn. Adsense and Adwords cannot coexist under the same business as a 85% controlled search market...it is an obvious anti-trust issue that is stifling innovation and keeping the market locked into Google's hands. And for extra bonus, it's runing the once libre WWW.
0_00_0
Senior Member
- Oct 7, 2010
- 1,027
- 494
Oh wow I didn't even think to do this. The website already looked shady but this confirms that it's a cancerous link.
I really hope I didn't inspire anyone to make a website monetized by link removal requests...
What do we do with our penalized links? Create links to our competition and ask for removal fees! F*cking absurd that this is a potential source of income...
ShadeDream
BANNED
- Nov 27, 2008
- 2,296
- 5,536
I have a better idea, let's cut all the unnecessary middle steps. Gov nationalizes Google and pays you a direct dividend. Sit back, relax and let the money chimes in. That should work!
People complain too much. Perfect response.
ShadeDream
BANNED
- Nov 27, 2008
- 2,296
- 5,536
I know where you're going, we've had this conversation before
But nope, this isn't about statization. This is about keeping the market healthy. Standard Oil was broken, AT&T was broken and now it's Google's turn. Adsense and Adwords cannot coexist under the same business as a 85% controlled search market...it is an obvious anti-trust issue that is stifling innovation and keeping the market locked into Google's hands. And for extra bonus, it's runing the once libre WWW.
Good point, but, at the end of the day the whole "antitrust" ideology (law, or whatever you want to call it) in my opinion is to some extent bullshit. It's like saying "Hey, you know what, he's doing better than me lets create a law so that I can get a share of his success without working for it myself." If you think about it, the search market is Google's innovation and they're not stifling anything, they're just holding onto what belongs to them in the first place. If we're talking innovation, come up with something better.
spaceman4445
Regular Member
- Dec 10, 2008
- 285
- 16
Although its ultimate crap to see now the websites are asking for money to remove links and since the webmaster realized the link removing companies making money ,he didnt lose a chance. but anyways you can ask for a discount if that works , if doesnt then live with it and move on..
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
That's exactly it! "We can't compete with them, take away their share and force them to be less efficient". That's all what "anti-trust" is about.
The only GOOD thing a government CAN do, is actually reduce the barriers to entry for competitors, by reducing regulatory cost. Less is more fits perfectly here.
- Mar 21, 2013
- 24,760
- 31,551
I admit there's a fine line somewhere between state intervention and keeping a market clean. But there's a false premiss there in your logic: that the WWW belonged to Google in the first place. That's wrong, waay wrong to the point it's absurd.
I'm here since before there was a Google, I used the WWW without Google and I know what it is like to be in an environment where your clicks everywhere are not tracked, where links weren't regulated by a private corporation, where there isn't a guy in a video telling everyone how to write content and they should / shouldnot link to and so forth. Google is a great search engine but a nefarious influence on the WWW.
This was once a free/libre medium where news stories didn't negotiate links with partners...where people once wrote content not for spammy ads but for the heck of it. THAT was an authentic web. What we have here is a once free WWW being turned into Google's social network.
matrix79
Junior Member
- Jan 20, 2013
- 123
- 27
Maybe you can complain to PayPal about it so at least they will lose them as payment processor and make things harder for them? Sometimes that's all what it takes. His merchant code is JCENIZA.
There was a couple of sites who were scraping my content and wouldn't respond to my requests. I finally managed to end it by reporting them to Adsense. Once they lost Adsense income they had no reason to exist and entire sites vanished very soon so I guess I helped myself and hundreds of other publishers who got their content scraped by them.
Now there definitely is a lot of other payment processors they could use but many of them will check the product before allowing to use their shopping cart.
There was a couple of sites who were scraping my content and wouldn't respond to my requests. I finally managed to end it by reporting them to Adsense. Once they lost Adsense income they had no reason to exist and entire sites vanished very soon so I guess I helped myself and hundreds of other publishers who got their content scraped by them.
Now there definitely is a lot of other payment processors they could use but many of them will check the product before allowing to use their shopping cart.
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
Let's cut to the chase:
People choose to use the Internet to make money. Internet -> traffic -> money. Your argument is "I don't like it that people care more about how to monetize traffic than building my romantic garden of free information".
So then, because people don't comply to your vision (how dare they?), you want some gun wielding organization to come and bully the medium on which people chose to make money with. Kinda self serving, like those people who wanted to make money in the first place, no?
blacktrilby
Supreme Member
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,317
- 1,122
I have been doing it for years with spammy directories. Makes good bank.
blacktrilby
Supreme Member
- Dec 9, 2008
- 1,317
- 1,122
- Mar 21, 2013
- 24,760
- 31,551
Let's cut to the chase:
People choose to use the Internet to make money. Internet -> traffic -> money. Your argument is "I don't like it that people care more about how to monetize traffic than building my romantic garden of free information".
So then, because people don't comply to your vision (how dare they?), you want some gun wielding organization to come and bully the medium on which people chose to make money with. Kinda self serving, like those people who wanted to make money in the first place, no?
You ignore everything I post and just post your own diatribe and I have zero desire to argue this stuff with you. Just move on, believing whatever, I don't care. Google's practices are monopolistic and abusive and Microsoft was sued for much less market abuse.
thejake
Power Member
- Nov 13, 2009
- 683
- 832
What about buying a bunch of deindexed domains and putting reddit clones on them and automatically loading urls scraped from youtube, then sending malicious backlink alerts to whoever posted the videos with an offer to remove them for $49.95?
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
You're probably looking at your mirror. If you don't want to discuss but simply announce your doctrine to use mere peasants, that's perfectly fine, nobody will call the government to force you to (see how nice that works?).
Google is not a monopoly in an economic sense. Is it a monopoly in a "hey, I 'm a simple guy, it looks like that, doesn't it"? Sure. Wake me up when that's more important than reality though.
hatblackguy
Regular Member
- Jun 8, 2011
- 257
- 64
I had to say this, everything that bartosimpsonio has said I agree with, he has some solid points sorry jazzc meant no wrong when I say this mate.