Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I get the "We think your business is a scam and so we are terminating our relationship" but I don't understand why "... and we'll keep the money." doesn't result in criminal charges.



What's even worse is that they won't tell you what you allegedly did wrong. You can appeal, but you have to guess what you did wrong and provide evidence, but you can't even access your click data anymore since you're now locked out. It's like being in a relationship with a psychotic person.


Exactly and that's one of not-so-many reasons I'm so happy for GDPR to kick in!

Basically a big fuck you to Google: "give me all the data you have on me or I will report you and you may be on the hook for 4% of your revenue".


google.com/takeout


The reason you've been down voted is that takeout gives you all YOUR data that they hold, not THEIR data about you (which GDRP now says is mostly now your data)


Whats even crazier is that I used that tool and google took 4 hours to build my archives. Fair enough. Problem is... some files are not mine!!! clearly not my name not my email address not my correspondence. No idea how this is happening. I will reach out to this person but other than that no idea where to reach to google as their checkout page does not offer any "contact us". I am also concerned someone using this tool will get my own data!!!


All ad networks take money away from publishers all of the time. For example, it takes a while to compute the quality score of ad clicks and realize that a site's traffic is full of bots that click on ads and never buy anything. The publisher will see income that gets subtracted back out, sometimes a month or two later. The advertiser (presumably) gets a refund.

It appears that Google did something different this time, I don't know what.


Maybe they didn't return the money back to customers.


That's a given.


On the advertiser side of Google's services, I have a refund for "invalid activity" on almost every monthly statement going back nearly a decade.

> You received a credit because we found invalid activity on your ads. What is it: Invalid activity refers to clicks and impressions that we suspect aren't the result of genuine customer interest. We don't charge you for invalid activity on your ads. Example: Invalid activity includes clicks and impressions performed by automated tools, as well as accidental clicks – for instance, if someone double clicks your ad.


Sure, but you'll never be in a position to audit that data. No independent 3rd party verification would ever do for Google ads.


one possibility is the refund is done to create the illusion click fraud is being prevented . It's like a manager telling the owner only $100 was taken from the til but $150 was and he pockets the $50. Not that I'm saying google is like that but you have no way of auditing this figure.


I get your point but in your example the scam would be:

'It's like a manager telling the owner only $150 was taken from the til but $100 was and he pockets the $50. Not that I'm saying google is like that but you have no way of auditing this figure.'

But, in googles case it's more like: We charge you 1,000$ they say 100$ was fraud and refund you 100$ meanwhile 200$ was and they keep the 30% of 100$ distributing 70$ back for fraudulent clicks they don't really investigate.


Interesting, I've seen people advice each other to support apps they can't buy by tapping on ads - were they actually harming devs?


Yes.

And if your webpage says something like "please click on the ads to support my website", you'll get a warning from Google. Presumably they also look for suggestions like that within apps.


Because the publisher agreed to that when they started the relationship?


You can sign your rights to class action lawsuits away, too, but I still find it wrong.


Coinhive works that way as well. I believe it is justified to call both a scam by themselves. Why? Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (innocent until proven guilty).

The problem lies with our justice system though. If it were more efficient we'd have less things like self-censorship and self-moderation.


> Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (innocent until proven guilty).

Seriously?


...yes?

"[The burden of] proof lies on him who states [a claim], not who denies [it]."


I think it's about the use of Latin for a phrase with a common English version.


With a verbatim translation. How apropos.


Don't you mean "How apropos (appropriate)"? Or (on the nose) maybe.


He just doesn't grok it does he?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: