Basically the people who are getting screwed here are the advertisers, Google gets their cut, the web site gets their cut, and the advertisers just burned a pile of money advertising out into space. It is very sad, and one which takes advantage of the fact that all of the brands have outsourced management of their advertising to third parties. It is like giving your office the manager the ability to approve invoices and sign checks. Never a good strategy.
If your claim is true - that the advertisers have abandoned all good sense and just throw good money after bad without checking if its good value for money - it's hard to call the advertisers victims. Maybe Google is good value for money - better than billboards - even though a certain amount is wasted. What is the alternative? Something independently confirmable like buying adloads on twenty percent of pageviews on www.crazy-popular-news-site.com in July?
Google keeps asking me if I'm a fully legit human. I assumed they used this also fully legit human status to decide whether to charge for the ads they don't show me. But is the claim here that Google just uses fully legit human status to annoy people who don't use Chrome? Seems a little anti-competitive.
and the readers / users
> “The fact that no one is trying to correct these errors suggests that real people do not visit this site, otherwise it would be fixed on the first day,”
> “Real people have no reason to visit such sites. And if we see on such sites millions of highly busy users, then this can only be advertising fraud,” it said in its report.
A Google spokesperson said the Edmonton and Albany sites were not violating any of its policies
If anyone has more direct info, please post it. FB is getting all the attention these days with truth and whatnot.
It has not much to do with censoring people, and more that this "popularity" of these sites is almost certainly driven by illegitimate means (scripts, botting, popups, malware etc), purely to collect ad revenue. After all who is going to bother with such worthless and out of date articles from a completely unknown "news" org.
The fact its extremely obvious, and Google can't even be bothered bodes poorly for the veracity of the online ad ecosystem.
I like it when such estimates are linked to no source at all.
Not even sure advertisers mind at this point?
I can't help but notice that ABC news spiked the Epstein story, NBC suppressed the Weinstein story (both for 'editorial standards'), yet both blared Kavanaugh allegations nonstop.
It's not just small news sources that are steered by politics.