What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
356 Comments
- Loki101, on 06/11/2009, -46/+467Ah, the mark of a mature corporation - the frivolous lawsuits to crush irritating little guys beneath their booted heel.
*sniff*. Little Google has all grown up. - MCA2142, on 06/11/2009, -21/+318Went to the article, then saw:
"Megan Fox Dons Sheer Dress In South Korea (PHOTO)"
Haven't yet read the article. - maffiou, on 06/11/2009, -29/+268This is scary as hell... If Google decides to use all they've got on you against you: you're properly ***** !
- mxpx5678, on 06/11/2009, -10/+180What does Al Gore have to do with this story?
- ShadowRuneZero, on 06/11/2009, -33/+202Read the article. The guy sued because they canceled his AdSense account, and in turn they canceled his account because he was using it on a parked domain (IE: A domain with nothing but links and ads, and a waste of a good URL). This was no grounds for a lawsuit, and even if it was, would you want someone who runs a site like that to win anyway?
- trizzleatl, on 06/11/2009, -8/+173He invented the internet
- cosworth99, on 06/11/2009, -67/+220I dunno, he broke the terms of service. Google just wants people to be straight with them. If not, they'll make you know it.
I would not call this evil. I would call this covering their ass. He missed being legal by two days. That's what he's sore about. - kierucom, on 06/11/2009, -41/+178He used AdSense on a domain without content, in full knowledge that this violated the AdSense TOS. His argument for why this should be 'okay' is that Google wouldn't let him sign up for AdSense for Domains. He also used wording that violated the TOS, and I can only presume that at some point he became aware that the wording was a violation.
That's what I learned from reading his article... so I'm sort of wondering why he's bitching that Google terminated his service. His argument as to what Google SHOULD have done was fairly ridiculous. According to him Google should just stop, pause, review his account and contact him with their suggestion for how he should do things, calmly inform him that he was a bad boy violating their TOS, and then sign him up for the alternative service...
I mean... really? - rob132, on 06/11/2009, -36/+138I don't know, I side with Google on this one. The terms of the contract said "Google may terminate your account for any reason."
It doesn't matter what the reason is/was, he signed it. They could have said "Because we don't like you" or "Because we don't want to pay you" both would have been vaild under the contract stipulation he signed. - inactive, on 06/11/2009, -13/+113They were going to let it go until he went on the internet and bragged about winning. The rule of law has been vindicated.
- giid, on 06/11/2009, -26/+123I took the article another way. This scumbag owns a bunch of parked domains to make money off they ads. He then put up some kind of BS "content" to try and be legal about it.
No sympathy. - Darthyoshiboy, on 06/11/2009, -25/+122Short answer as to why Google decided to appeal a $761 small claims case?
THEY WERE RIGHT! - hinesh, on 06/11/2009, -2/+87TOE THUMB, she isn't showing her thumb cause she has a TOE THUMB
http://www.thewrestlingfan.com/sitebuildercontent/ ... - mobedda, on 06/10/2009, -47/+124NOTHING can make me miss MS, but Google won't be winning any friends this way - that's for sure.
- f0urtyfive, on 06/11/2009, -6/+77I believe he sued them because they would not tell him WHY they canceled his account, not because they had canceled his account. Google did the same thing to me, they kept sending me threatening emails saying that I'm not complying with the ToS and if I keep doing what I'm doing they're going to cancel my account, and I kept replying asking what I was doing that was not complying with the ToS so I could fix it. Their response was always that they could not go into detail with a link to the (30 or so page) ToS.
Ridiculous. - bradleyland, on 06/11/2009, -28/+97Get out your pitchforks and torches!
Has anyone looked at the evidence in the case? The guy violated the AdSense ToS, and Google presented evidence that they directed him to the appropriate portion of the ToS for those violations. It's not Google's job to make sure your pages fit their ToS, it's yours. Google is very explicit when you sign up for an AdSense account that you are not to direct users to click your ads, nor are you to place ads on pages without content. It's pretty ***** obvious that "Pick a link" instructs users to click an ad link.
I don't blame Google for questioning this guy's ability to read. It sounds like he has his own ideas about how he'd like to make money on the internet, and he's sufficiently crafty enough to spin it as if he's some kind of victim.
Oh, and the reason that Google fought his case IS because he decided to make waves about it. Google doesn't need a landslide of spammers taking them to court over canceling their AdSense account for their ***** domain squatting spam pages. If the guy had shut the ***** up and taken the money, he'd be $761 richer right now.
Lost a little more respect for HuffPo today. - cosworth99, on 06/11/2009, -2/+60AlGoreRythms?
- sockpuppets, on 06/11/2009, -6/+59I hope they don't tell others about my puppet porn addiction.
- richirwin, on 06/11/2009, -7/+59Adblock Plus - ***** google ads.
- pathouston22, on 06/11/2009, -18/+67Or don't break the terms of service, and Google won't cancel your account.
- popflop, on 06/11/2009, -2/+51But if that was the case then why wouldn't they just tell him how he broke the TOS in the first place? That's the problem here, the breakdown of Google CS. It sucks. Period.
- PunBiased, on 06/11/2009, -7/+55That may be, but the point of his article is that Google could have just explained that to him in the first place but they chose to allow this fiasco to escalate until it was out of all reason.
His point about customer service is well taken for me and probably anyone else in Canada who has dealt with Rogers and Bell. Oft times the consumer is treated like ***** and regarded as a nuisance but they loooove your money. - NathanielJ, on 06/11/2009, -15/+62@Pun - He's a domain squatter who got his account shut down because... he's a freaking domain squatter. How could he have possibly not known why he got shut down?
He broke the rules and tried to sue to get his money back. How is that NOT frivolous? - Hamerhead33, on 06/11/2009, -1/+45toe thumb = low self esteem = I have a chance?
- bobartig, on 06/11/2009, -7/+48"Google just wants people to be straight with them."
Absolutely not. If Google wanted people to be straight with them, Aaron would not have had to SUE them just to FIND OUT WHY his account was canceled. Google didn't even TELL the guy why until he was presented with the relevant evidence until right before the appeals court trial. Up to that point, he had no clue what ToS he had violated, and was desperately trying to find out what it was.
"If not, they'll make you know it."
No, no, no, no, no! They didn't tell him *****. That was the whole ***** problem to begin with that led to the lawsuit. You can not be more wrong. - NathanielJ, on 06/11/2009, -22/+59Or, you know, getting their money back from the frivolous lawsuits issued against them?
- NathanielJ, on 06/11/2009, -18/+53His original story didn't deserve a sequel. He's a freaking domain squatter who got his account shut down for breaking the terms of service; we all knew this from the LAST story, yet he's still acting as if he had no idea why his account was shut down. He's an utter wad for wasting taxpayer money trying to sue Google when they were in the right and he knew it full well.
- Orsenfelt, on 06/11/2009, -5/+39Am I alone in thinking Megan Fox isn't all that hot? Still out of my league, but not as hot as people seem to make out.
- inactive, on 06/11/2009, -5/+39And he was violating their terms.
FTA - "One appeared to be that I had used the forbidden phrase "pick a link" on my web site. The other was that Google AdSense advertisements could not be placed on web pages lacking content." - PunBiased, on 06/11/2009, -2/+35A lucky shot
- PunBiased, on 06/11/2009, -21/+53How was the lawsuit frivolous? he went to small claims because he thought he was getting ripped off. Google didn't feel the need to explain anything to him so what was he to do, shrug and say "oh well"?
- vtnerd, on 06/11/2009, -2/+32The only reason he won the first case is because Google could not supply an answer as to what terms he violated. It says "may be terminated for any reason" but they actually need a reason. "Any reason" is not the same as "no reason."
Google came back and supplied a reason and he lost. All he ever wanted in the first place was the reason. - keysmachine, on 06/11/2009, -24/+54this is how i read that wall of text.
Google says screw this dude just pay him his 761 bucks WHATEVER
Guy Gloats to the friggin world on his victory.. and jerks off publicly to show his dominance against "THE MAN"
Google then says.. on second thought make the call were gonna bury this fag
Google then proceeds to rip him a new one at appeals court
Guy gets nothing second time around
Lesson learned on that day?
Vanity is a sin for a reason. LULZ - mnemy, on 06/11/2009, -0/+28True. But when they terminated his account they should have specified the reason why. And they should have been ready to give specifics when he called in for details.
Whiny as he was, he had a point. Google has a flaw in their records system for this particular project, and they need to improve it. Unfortunately it took a lawsuit to bring it to their attention. - inactive, on 06/11/2009, -1/+26Nothing pisses me off more than an improper *****.
- PopeSmoker, on 06/11/2009, -1/+24Telling a person why their account was canceled and suggesting an alternative solution is not ridiculous. It's basic customer service. He's not suggesting, as you seem to understand it, that Google should have called him out of the blue to explain why his account was closed. He's suggesting that Google should be able to explain why it was closed when he calls them for more information about the account closure, instead of getting the run-around from practically everyone there.
His point is that the whole situation could have been avoided if a Google customer service rep had simply explained what happened to his account. - bradleyland, on 06/11/2009, -3/+25@PunBiased
Check out this portion of his article:
"It was Google's position that my company had violated the terms of service it had agreed to when I signed up for AdSense. All of the logical legal arguments and tactics followed: written proof that my company had signed up for AdSense, a number of instances where I was asked to read relevant portions of the terms of service out loud for the judge (designed more than anything to humiliate since it was already readily apparent that I could read), and arguments about my nefarious background. These, Google invented on the spot."
Of special note: "a number of instances where I was asked to read relevant portions of the terms of service"
Google directed him to the "relevant portions of the terms of service". This guy violated two of the simplest no-no's of Google AdSense: don't put ads on blank pages and don't direct users to click your ad links. In addition to outlining this in the ToS, they explicitly state it in separate language during sign up.
Google fights ad spammers every day with their AdSense product. Google isn't in a position to review every violating page and tell the user who to bring it in to compliance. Can we not expect people to use a little common sense? AdSense is designed to display relevant ads on content pages.
This Aaron Greenspan guy is a troll. Look in to his history and you'll see he's been involved in a number of ***** cases where he tries to stir the pot for publicity's sake. - FuZi0nDET, on 06/11/2009, -6/+28The guy should be lucky they didn't bring up his porn browsing habits in order to discredit him!
How would he have handled this question?
Google's Lawyer: Sir is it true you've searched for midget tranny sexy approximately 30 times in the past week? - ShiftyBizniss, on 06/11/2009, -2/+24I agree... I mean she's really hot, but I see women of equal or greater hotness just walking around in the mall
- inactive, on 06/11/2009, -1/+22Once this guy publicized his previous "victory" on the internet, it became a matter of principle for Google. Even if the settlement was pocket change for Google. I bet if he kept quiet, they might have just not bothered with the appeal.
- inactive, on 06/11/2009, -4/+24https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms
"Google may at any time, in its sole discretion, terminate all or part of the Program, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate the participation of any Property in all or part of the Program for any reason."
1. They could have stated their reason is "because we wanted to" and still be in the clear.
2. Nowhere in the tos says that they have to tell them the reason their account was terminated. - EllisSpice, on 06/11/2009, -17/+36'Don't be *****'
Classic. - FearlessFreep, on 06/11/2009, -13/+31I agree. I read the first few comments here and then went and read the article and my thought was "the guy's an idiot and a whiner". But I guess if you whine in the right places you get a lot of sympathy
- bobartig, on 06/11/2009, -1/+19On an individual account, yes. But if every disgruntled AdSense customer raised a stink in small claims court, that could start adding up to millions of leaked $$$. If google expects to keep doing things in their own obtuse, draconian way, they had to win this case.
- FuZi0nDET, on 06/11/2009, -0/+18Ugh what's the white stuff on her dress?
- neillawson, on 06/11/2009, -4/+21He's super cereal.
- bobartig, on 06/11/2009, -4/+20And 3 days later, Google came out with a separate AdSense program SPECIFICALLY for "parked domains to make money off the ads."
This ruling seems legally sound to me, but 1) Google is being a total dick, and 2) Google came up with a program specifically for what this guy was doing a mere 3 days later, so they cannot fundamentally have a problem with the practice. Google wants these "scumbags" as customers, they just can't sufficiently dislodge their swelled heads from their asses long enough to make this happen. - MacDre, on 06/11/2009, -7/+22so u read EVERY TOS that you accept? or Google could have just told him what he did wrong and he could have fixed it.. like he said, they clearly knew what he did wrong.. would have taken 30 seconds.
- PrismoFillusion, on 06/11/2009, -0/+15$761....$761,000,000
What a leap! - JantjePietje, on 06/11/2009, -1/+15Seriously people should learn something about the law before posting such stupid questions
Laws > TOS
If I could just terminate every contract with everyone I worked with while owing them money, thereby never paying anyone ever, by putting that 1 line in my TOS that would be great but I can't because it is against the ***** law
Just like putting in your TOS reasons like "he is a *****' or 'he's a jew' or 'he is a muslim' for terminating a contract are illegal
You cannot put anything you want in a TOS people jeez -
Show 51 - 100 of 362 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 