Hacker News

points by augment_me 18 hours ago | 0 comments

Sounds like you pay less for ads than someone else will. Attention is the currency in the world, pay more and your site will be on top, clearly there are customers that want your product.

[–] ndriscoll 17 hours ago

You shouldn't have to pay more than someone who is obviously committing fraud because people working at Google should be going to prison for deciding to partner with people who are obviously committing fraud.

[–] augment_me 17 hours ago

Yeah and housing should be affordable, and there should be no wars in the world, people should not be greedy, etc. Let's look at the facts and incentives in front of us now instead of fairytail "shoulds".

1) Google has more money than anyone who can file for litigation

2) You don't want your brand reputation damaged

So you can choose to either complain, spend a load of money in pointless juridical processes you will lose, or just pay up for the ads now, which will in the end pay for part of it at least since people are interested in the product.

So the fully rational choice right now you can do is: if brand damage costs > ad costs, buy ads. If not, then it's fine and let people get scammed because its out of your hands.

[–] ndriscoll 16 hours ago

You can of course do both: pay the protection racket money while also working to spread an understanding and build consensus/a demand for the government to crack down on major companies directly participating in fraud.

[–] 6510 16 hours ago

you could but then you should call it protection money