Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgmrequel | Hacker News Reader

They were barred before - I think this language means next time they are caught, it'll hopefully be much worse.

The Commissions position is that the conduct would have been barred previously. With the consent order, WB has essentially lost the ability to claim that the conduct is not barred in any future actions, since it will be a violation of the consent order irrespective if it was a violation of the generally applicable rules or not.

So a slap on the wrist...

A slap on the wrist is appropriate here. There were apparently 5.5 million views of sponsored content. The total value of that commerce is a few thousand dollars in AdSense revenue.

The calculation (admittedly a difficult one) should not be based on the amount of AdSense revenue generated, but the revenue generated by the number of people who bought the game based on Youtube_Personality's recommendation. Shadows of Mordor cost $60 at launch. Let's say just 20,000 people went out and bought the game as a result. Suddenly, the value of that fraudulent promotion is $1,200,000.

Shadows of Mordor cost $60 at launch. Let's say just 20,000 people went out and bought the game as a result. Suddenly, the value of that fraudulent promotion is $120,000.

20,000 x 60 = $1,200,000

Missed a zero. Thanks for the correction!

The ad sense revenue implicitly takes into account the degree to which page views translate into sales and revenue.

But with a small fractional multiplier - the ad sense revenue is a measurement of Google's chargeable added value on those sales, not the revenue or profit accrued to the advertiser.

> The total value of that commerce is a few thousand dollars in AdSense revenue

Incorrect. Youtube videos are reportedly from personalities giving an honest opinion. Adsense is advertising. Most people know the difference and if they made a choice to buy the game based on that information they have been defrauded. 5.5 Million * 60 = $330 Million, not a few thousand dollars.

5.5 million was the number of views, not the number of purchases.

I understand that, it's merely illustrative of the cost of fraud like this. If I buy an ad in the paper that says I can cure cancer for 10k, you go after the 10k not the $100 I paid to place the ad.

Sure, but you don't multiply the 10k by the number of papers sold. You multiply it by the number of people that sent you the money because they saw the ad in the paper.

That's not an assumption that you should make unless they explicitly say so.

Generally if you violate a previous FTC agreement the results are pretty serious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com