Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by AllenKids | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

AllenKids

And I think it is clear he made a deal with Google, with or without monetary compensation I do not know.

Please slap me with proof that I'm wrong, I so wish to be wrong.

View on HN

Guilty unless proven innocent?

Google's text ads certainly aren't intrusive.

I thought about that before commenting. And yes I was being unfair to him.

But still I stand by previous comment, it needs to be said and from his blog entry and reply to inquiry in the comments section, the collaboration between him and ad providers is clearly implied and if true, conflict of interests is a glaring problem.

Depends on their content:

An ad for a local garage? Fine. But I would class "Mom discovers new TEETH WHITENING solution! Don't listen to your DENTIST! CLICK HERE TODAY!" to be pretty distracting and intrusive.

Maybe you're way too easily distracted and should solve that issue.

Edit: Come on... life is full of distraction. When you go shopping do you shut your eyes in case you see "SALE AT PENNYS!!!", or do you just ignore things that don't interest you? Jeez

Those ads are usually not allowed on the networks they run on. They're often posed by affiliate's as the original companies have long since been blocked. Unfortunately finding the article on this is harder then finding a real teeth whitening product...

Maybe Mozilla encouraged him in this direction, since they're friendly with Google?

I don't know how friendly they are now, given Chrome and Google apparently declining to renew its payments to Mozilla that were a big chunk of Mozilla's budget.

Citation needed

Is Googling that hard? http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Mozilla-Still... or https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222404/Update_Mozil...

> Confidence is good, because there's no understating the importance of the deal for Mozilla. The search deal with Google accounted for roughly $100 million of Mozilla's $123 million in sales for 2010. That's a whopping 84 percent.

The Googling I did, as well as your quote, seem to disagree with your assertion. You say that Google have apparently declined to renew the deal, while those two links say that we don't know, but (per your quote) it's likely that they have. The fact that I couldn't find a link which conclusively states that either party chose not to renew the deal is why I asked for a citation.

Gee, thanks for explaining what you wanted the cite for, the part of my comment that presupposed the most in-depth knowledge of the issues and so is the least likely for any random commenter to drop a snarky {{fact}} on.

That made it very easy for me to understand which claim you were questioning, and so either correct myself or provide further information.

Sorry about that. My comments aren't all winners.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com