Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjeezers
I believe the article was very factual and informative. It contained no assumptions, followed relevant links, and presented the information accurately.
I'm not sure what you mean by "lump people in like this." If you're referring to sponsors giving prepaid advertising money to websites purely for traffic and clicks without realizing that some of the traffic comes from illegal sources, then I don't think this is lumping anyone in. It simply highlights that some sponsors only look at traffic statistics without examining them further.
This is a valid point that deserves to be highlighted.
|
I think Roald is describing the parts where the author is accusing people of being guilty by association, when in reality, the truth is slightly more complex.
Yes, programs and networks should be more proactive in analyzing their traffic sources, but when you have hundreds or thousands of different traffic sources, the logistics of determining what is legal and what isn’t becomes insanely difficult, near impossible.
So condoning them is a slippery slope.
Some of the companies mentioned in the article do have direct associations and that should be investigated. However, a lot aren’t.
Some of the leaps the author makes are so far fetched that its almost equivalent to accusing Google for enabling illegal content because they had Analytics on their website.