He is quoted saying that right on the linked page. But here is the exact quote, in case you haven't perused the original submission:
"We had two AOL-ers that had distressed babies that were born that we paid a million dollars each to make sure those babies were OK in general. And those are the things that add up into our benefits cost. So when we had the final decision about what benefits to cut because of the increased healthcare costs, we made the decision, and I made the decision, to basically change the 401(k) plan."
I really can't believe people are trying to justify bullying like this. The points they're trying to smear him on are outlandish like saying he's personally responsible for NSA surveillance, or because he made an app for construction blueprints he's personnally kicking people out of their homes?
The type of block they're describing could easily be implemented in simple stateless firewall, something like iptables. No deep packet inspection is needed to block based off of header info like src/dst ip, port, or protocol.
DPI specifically means examining the payload of the packet. This is not DPI.
>1. Google is making arbitrary rules on how sites should behave, because they have a monopoly.
How are rules against paid linking scams or procedure generated content farms considered arbitrary? It's clearly trying to game the system, and the rules are explicitly laid out to tell you NOT to do it.
>2. Google needs these rules, because Google’s rankings are apparently trivial to game.
If this were true, you can make millions executing your plan for any number of websites. It's not.
> How are rules against paid linking scams or procedure generated content farms considered arbitrary? It's clearly trying to game the system, and the rules are explicitly laid out to tell you NOT to do it.
The whole case with the delisting/penalization and subsequent(and extremely speedy) re-listing of RapGenius is a great example of Google's current arbitrary practices. I covered this is some details on another thread in a couple of replies.
One man's advertising is another man's paid linking scam. Do you know where to draw the line? Google doesn't - or at least they can't create an algorithm that knows the difference, even after significant investment in the problem.
That would be true if RSA keys were brute forced, but they aren't - e.g. 512 bit RSA takes days/weeks to break on commodity hardware these days, whereas 512 bit brute force (as is essentially needed for ECC these days) takes significantly longer than the estimated age of the universe.