101–110 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or youtube, although that makes a lot of money so probably not anytime soon.
> Or youtube, although that makes a lot of money so probably not anytime soon Does it? Alphabet quarterly reports don't list YouTube revenues and expenses separately, and i imagine something like YouTube costs a shit load of money in storage and bandwidth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We empathize with "people doing their job" perhaps a little too much? But part if is must also be just how inhumane jail sentences have become. Prisons are terrible places in the US, and sentences really disproportanate. With that framing, maybe it feels harsh to send somebody to prison for years for "just playing hardball a little too much". I don't know, but the US penal system needs a revamp anyhow.
Martha Stewart did 6 months for lying. Hopefully the Jan 6 knuckleheads will get a little longer than that.
The parent comment quoted saying they were loading their ads before ads from competitor networks. Noone said anything about Jan 6, or anything touching on the event.
You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently used it to gain an advantage in the ad market (basically an antitrust issue) to a partisan political conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently used it to gain an advantage in the ad market (basically an antitrust issue) towards a generic conversation of ads are bad, but Google is good. That is a really horrible accusation of something I haven't done. The OP is the one proposing jail-like punishment for actions that only lower the ad revenue and actually ben…
[deleted]
"Did you hear about AMP? Yeah we switched to it last week. I heard Google would start weighting pages that didn't use it down. Wait, you haven't made the switch yet? Well... I don't know, we'll see what happens..."
If I smell FUD as a marketing technique, I'm out. The odds that you're trying to sell me something I don't need are astronomical -- and in four years, management will be driving me to the next big fad under FOMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I downvoted you because you are deviating the conversation. I find it hard not to attribute hidden intentions behind what you posted. The parent comment quoted saying they were loading their ads before ads from competitor networks. Noone said anything about when the content was loaded. Google is the largest ad peddler. You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently…
> You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently used it to gain an advantage in the ad market (basically an antitrust issue) towards a generic conversation of ads are bad, but Google is good. That is a really horrible accusation of something I haven't done. The OP is the one proposing jail-like punishment for actions that only lower the ad revenue and actually ben…
False, it only does that for their competition.
What about the toxicity that’s AMP for email?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically you want people to go to jail for not blasting ads into your face immediately and actually loading web content first? Seems like a horribly awful world to me - would you extend this to Ad blockers as well? And when was the last time you've seen how horrible mainstream web is, with its autoplaying video popups? AMP isn't the best solution, but what you're proposing is just horrifying. If anything, we shou…
I downvoted you because you are deviating the conversation. I find it hard not to attribute hidden intentions behind what you posted. The parent comment quoted saying they were loading their ads before ads from competitor networks. Noone said anything about when the content was loaded. Google is the largest ad peddler. You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are active lawsuits going on by something like 49 out of 50 states. That's how damning evidence like this -- as well as Facebook offering to share unencrypted WhatsApp messages with Google (through the "backup to Drive" feature) -- came out to light. Unfortunately a lot of HN readers are dismissing this or calling it partisan grandstanding, just because it's Texas that filed it.
> Facebook offering to share unencrypted WhatsApp messages with Google where can I read more on why they allowed this?