Other Google admits profiting from illegal Olympic ticket ads

and your point is?

 

You are an idiot! I don't argue with idiots. You made a statement, I asked for proof, you failed to provide that. You cant win an argument with numptys like you, because you are that stupid you dont even realise.

 

How many were google ads?

 

Basically that your argument: "My good sirs, your disagreement with my most strongly felt opinion that Google are an evil organisation guilty of malfeasance can only be conceived of as owing to the brainwashing and discombobulation of your suggestible minds by the same, and henceforth as indisputable proof of my argument" is emotive, biased, not based in fact or reason and hence, invalid.

There were some other arguments which were repeats of previously challenged arguments, whilst ignoring the challenges. Kind of like having two one-way conversations, which is the very antithesis of the concept of debate.

 

Actually, Google had a case to answer here and in the case last year. They quickly handed over $500 million last year. Since you didn't like the post and or Google leg humping, it somehow means the case is wrong?

Everything that you have stated M7ck has been absolute bollocks and has no substance or merit in this topic. Go away little child

If you've got a problem with a thorough investigation by the BBC and the US Justice department, go and have a go at them.

 

I'm not sure a tabloid expose by BBC Five Live can count as a thorough investigation tbh but if it fits with your world view, i'm passed arguing at you.

There is no case to answer here, you've been shown to be wrong on 5 pages now, last year the case was answered and a fine paid, though again you've been shown why they are two different cases.

 

Ive been shown nothing by any of you other than shouty people getting on their high horse. What have you shown other than gobbing off "What do you expect them to do!" they aren't two different cases at all. They are both cases were Google have advertised illegal items and have been made to stop advertising and in one finished case been made to pay the ransom. The other in identical circumstances is in its infancy, who knows where it will end up.

Tabloid expose? what the hell are you smoking?

 

Only two instances? In that case I think Google are doing a fantastic job.

 

The only thing I have stated is that you are an idiot. And everything you say is backing that statement up. I don't think I have ever seen a decent post from you, You don't seem to contribute anything apart from ******** rambling and to back up your ******** you just keep repeating. It's an endless cycle of ********.

 

The whole thing hinges from a heart tugging fluff piece about people too dumb to recognize a scam site, Googles name is thrown in to attract morons (worked) some cursory research is performed, in this case a "security consultant" and in the end its revealed that the due to the work done by these reporters the menace has been defeated. Its bloody classic tabloid ****.

In reality this is a story about how you can be scammed on the web, tragic but ultimately nothing new.

 

One case involves ads of Canadian class A drugs. These were deemed to be illegal given that US adverts for class A drugs have been deemed illegal. There was a case of precedence, in other words. Google acknowledged that and paid the fine which under the liability terms of contract are passed on to the advertiser. In short: precedence showed that Google could reasonably have known the ads were illegal. It conceded. It stopped the adverts. It paid the fine.

The BBC case is more complex. Advertising Olympic tickets is not in itself illegal. Any illegal practices can only be exposed by inspecting the advertiser, who of course will take measures to try and pass such inspections as a legit concern. Google, like any other media company, reasonably considers itself to be lacking in resources or expertise to examine every advertiser as to the legitimacy or quality of their practices. I mean, how would a tabloid or magazine judge whether, say, a cosmetic surgery practice is clinically qualified to do the job they are advertising? Same thing. So the liability for false advertising is squarely laid at the advertiser's feet, as it should be.

Once the BBC exposed the advertiser as engaging in illegal practices, Google withdrew the adverts, as it should. It has met its obligations now. Case closed.

 

Looking forward to you arguing with the unassailable logic of Nexxo

 

And you've brought what exactly?

 

A lot more than you.

 

They weren't actually class a drugs in that instance Nexxo, they were just cheaper pharmaceuticals but were not approved under the US FDA. That's what made them illegal. Most apparently were genuine medicine but some were just jelly babies. The whole point was it became common practice for US citizens requiring medicine to order it from Canada. I'm sure there were plenty of lobbyists for the US Pharmaceutical companies to get the loophole closed and the sites shut down. Since Google were making money from ads, it was the biggest easiest target. It worked but by their very own admission because of the illegal nature of the product being illegal in the US, they had to admit they should have closed it down sooner or never allowed it at all.

Yes this occasion isn't as serious as someone getting the wrong medication and deaths caused as a result. It wouldn't have been difficult for Google to have closed down any adword per click other than the very short list of authorised Olympic ticket sellers. Other than tickets dot london2012 dot com, there shouldn't be anyone else.

 

Very little from you I'm afraid, try not to be too shouty next time.

 

Try back up your ******** with facts. You have been proven wrong countless times yet you are too stupid to accept this. I am done arguing with dimwits, you have now been added to my ignore list so I don't need to kill any of my own braincells reading the mince that you post.

 

I've been quoting facts all through this topic. You just didn't like them. There's no proof of any wrong doing on MY part at all. Just quoting the FACTS ma'am!

Stay quiet now shouty person

 

Wouldn't it be a nice world where everyone only used the words that directly applied to them on adwords and each application was vetted manually. Unfortunately, that world is on the other side of the wardrobe. What if I wrote a story about olympic tickets and wanted to improve my traffic by using adwords. Would I also then be excluded?

 

Good call.