28 February 2005

Auto-link: Why offer revenue sharing to bloggers who are then denied use of Java?

There's been some talk about possible retribution for those who install Java coding to block Google Auto-linking.

I'm confused. Why is Google saying they value content providers by issuing them a percentage of ad revenues; but then turning around and suggesting that the tools to provide that content will be restricted?

I'm all for Google-Blogger drawing lines and making business. But right now they're sending mixed signals.

Dave Winer reports Google's Auto-link has prompted discussion and codersto create some blocks.

Of course, it uses JavaScript, prompting threats to deny bloggers from using JavaScript. Ref

It remains to be seen whether the copyright attorneys have anything to say about changing content. Then again, if the answer is that they own the platform and don't want the users-providors to have any say about Auto-link, why are they paying content providers a portion of the ad revenues?

We'll also find out whether Blogger is truly independent of Google . . .

  • Does Google only pay Blogger's a portion of ad revenues to keep people happy?

  • Will Google deny ad-revenue sharing to those who put in an auto-link-block?

  • Can content-providors demand through litigation a greater percentage of the ad revenues in exchange for letting Google-blogger have an auto-link, but deny use of java in templates?
  • There's been some talk about possible retribution for those who install Java coding to block Google Auto-linking.

    I'm confused. Why is Google saying they value content providers by issuing them a percentage of ad revenues; but then turning around and suggesting that the tools to provide that content will be restricted?

    I'm all for Google-Blogger drawing lines and making business. But right now they're sending mixed signals.

    Dave Winer reports Google's Auto-link has prompted discussion and codersto create some blocks.

    Of course, it uses JavaScript, prompting threats to deny bloggers from using JavaScript. Ref

    It remains to be seen whether the copyright attorneys have anything to say about changing content. Then again, if the answer is that they own the platform and don't want the users-providors to have any say about Auto-link, why are they paying content providers a portion of the ad revenues?

    We'll also find out whether Blogger is truly independent of Google . . .

  • Does Google only pay Blogger's a portion of ad revenues to keep people happy?

  • Will Google deny ad-revenue sharing to those who put in an auto-link-block?

  • Can content-providors demand through litigation a greater percentage of the ad revenues in exchange for letting Google-blogger have an auto-link, but deny use of java in templates?
    " />