This guy seems like a self-glorifying scam artist. From his description it seems his site was one of those content-free ad farms, i.e. the spam of the web.
He wrote: “After pointing out that in the United States of America, the accused are generally given the right to know both the crimes they are being accused of, and the identities of their accusers”
This is silly. He was not accused of a crime. Using Google AdSense is a partnership requiring agreement on both sides, not some kind of right.
“Effectively, Google’s position was that it was above the law”
No, Google’s position was that they are allowed to choose who they do business with.
This guy seems like a self-glorifying scam artist. From his description it seems his site was one of those content-free ad farms, i.e. the spam of the web.
He wrote: “After pointing out that in the United States of America, the accused are generally given the right to know both the crimes they are being accused of, and the identities of their accusers”
This is silly. He was not accused of a crime. Using Google AdSense is a partnership requiring agreement on both sides, not some kind of right.
“Effectively, Google’s position was that it was above the law”
No, Google’s position was that they are allowed to choose who they do business with.
David Pennock: He won his court battle, it seems. Which gives some weight to his opinion.
So did the woman who spilled coffee on herself
I guess I’m saying the court got it wrong (at least according to the information I saw)
“the court got it wrong”
OK.