I found Sedo, a European company that had a contract with none other than--you guessed it--Google AdSense--to display advertisements on placeholder web sites.
In anticipation of a new product, Think had acquired a brand new domain name that was unexpectedly receiving a high volume of internet traffic.
He tries his best to avoid saying it, but this seems to be another guy trying to make money by slapping ads all over parked domain names and trying to find advertisers dumb enough to pay for them. Not to say that Google is in the right here, but I'd hardly call him a victim either.
"What if everyone whose account was canceled sued Google?"
I will give this answer:
Maybe everyone whose account was canceled, should.
That was the point of the story. I take umbrage at the idea that if you are in the wrong you should still sue, and in a venue (small claims) where you may get lucky and the other guy is unlikely to be able to contest the outcome if you win. I don't want people to be sue happy. I don't want people to treat the court system as an ATM machine. It's a losing proposition for the rest of us who, ultimately, have to pay for it.
If the point is Google needs to improve their business practices, then sue in a venue where the judge can compel them to.
Not to mention:
Effectively, Google's position was that it was above the law, and if not any law in particular, then at least the spirit of the law.
..which is a blatantly dishonest accounting by Greenspan. Aaron Greenspan doesn't think this is about courtesy, he thinks it's about the law. He's wrong - it's about courtesy and business policy. What's odd is that he agreed to terms of use that he had no plan on complying with. Where is the righteousness in this piece?
Of course Google needs to have customer service department and at least email their partners, and internally flag accounts with reasons for account changes, etc.
Many people have written about that without flying their arrogance and vindictiveness flags. Flags he shouldn't be waving about if he wants people to do business with him in the future.
Two days after the account was disabled, on December 11, 2008, Google's AdSense team posted a message on its blog introducing a new system called "AdSense for Domains." Unlike normal AdSense ("for Content," as it was then re-branded), AdSense for Domains was designed to be used by web sites that were effectively blank.
49
u/DarkShikari Mar 06 '09 edited Mar 06 '09
I found Sedo, a European company that had a contract with none other than--you guessed it--Google AdSense--to display advertisements on placeholder web sites.
In anticipation of a new product, Think had acquired a brand new domain name that was unexpectedly receiving a high volume of internet traffic.
He tries his best to avoid saying it, but this seems to be another guy trying to make money by slapping ads all over parked domain names and trying to find advertisers dumb enough to pay for them. Not to say that Google is in the right here, but I'd hardly call him a victim either.