Sacked by a Google algorithm

Government has many special powers. Government can issue new laws. Government can put you in jail. Government can legally spy on you as long as they have a warrant.

The accountability should be proportional to acts.

If you want to execute someone, you better hold a fair trial and provide ample proof of wrongdoing.

If you create a straightforward agreement where only use of your non-essential service is at stake, you don't need accountability at all. It says right there that the agreement can be voided at any time by any party for any reason.

The size of Google has nothing to do with it. They are using the same legal framework as everyone else, big or small. If you were running a 2-person startup offering a service over internet you would be a fool to not include similar clause in your agreement with the exact same amount of accountability.

If you don't like that such agreements allow Google to act that way, that's fine, but accept that if you eliminate this possibility for Google, you eliminate it for every other business, small or big, internet-based or not and that would not be a good.

We don't want laws that treat big or small companies differently in cases like this (regardless of which one would be favored).

You claim it's easy to violate the rules honestly. You do not provide any evidence for that claim.

In this particular case the guy admits to violating the rules by encouraging his visitors to click on ads. I think he was treated very fairly: his account was suspended, just like accounts of other people who do click fraud.

How does the target audience (outdoor hobbyists vs software consumers) matter?

Next, Patrick did not say anything about the guy not being hard working. Nor did I find that he was taking a dump on him. (really, what kind of language is this?). He only wrote about his experience as an Adwords/AdSense advertiser.

And why are you comparing billboard and TV advertising with AdWords? As you mentioned, it is extremely hard to target and measure traditional advertising and that's one of the main reason why AdWords and AdSense have become popular and more and more business are spending money on them.

Also, I am pretty sure that no one advertisiting on AdWords/AdSense is expecting that each and every click through will convert to a customer. Let's say I advertise on Hacker News. After a month, I find that the click through rate is 7%, out of which I am able to convert 1% of those clicks. Let's say PG wants to buy Mercedes and tells HN visitors to click the ads. Suddenly click through rate jumps through the roof at 14%. As those clicks are not because someone is interested in my product, my conversion rate drop s to 0.50%. So my advertising spend doubles and I actually make less money. How is it fair to me? If I was a direct advertiser for this guy's website, I would definitely call him and ask him about this unusual behavior. I will try to figure out what's happening and if the publisher doesn't co-operate, I will stop advertising on his site. The only difference in this situation is that Google is the middle man. I think it's in interest of Google to monitor unusual spike in CTR and take some action.

All that aside, I completely disapprove of Google's current approach where there is no transparency and they are allowed to take money from the publisher without publisher having any recourse.

I don't think anyone has to "study" Google's terms for an AdSense account to know they don't want fraudulent clicks. I'm pretty sure Google tries to make that very, very clear during the account set up process. As my earlier comment notes this guy seemed to know something was wrong with openly encouraging AdSense ad clicks.

=== http://path.to/e3067/ ====

=== http://path.to/e3067/ ====

Gold autumn, personality Men’s clothing + Shoes, Travel bag that grabs an eye coat + Chao packet Free transport

=== http://path.to/e3067/ ====

=== http://path.to/e3067/ ====

=== http://path.to/e3067/ ====