Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 4, 02:38
2: Dec 3, 14:19
3: Dec 3, 11:17
4: Dec 3, 07:33
5: Dec 2, 17:22
6: Dec 2, 11:48
7: Dec 2, 08:21
8: Dec 1, 17:33
9: Dec 1, 11:23
10: Nov 30, 15:54
11: Nov 30, 09:41
12: Nov 29, 16:44
13: Nov 29, 08:01
14: Nov 28, 16:19
15: Nov 28, 09:42
16: Nov 27, 18:07
17: Nov 27, 12:04
18: Nov 27, 08:26
19: Nov 26, 18:06
20: Nov 26, 12:05
Posts: 150
In response to
"
correct me if I’m wrong but refunding 80% of your ad sales back to the advertisers is probably bad for your ad business -- (link)
"
by
hollywood big shot
LOL at the idea that Google will give back any of that money. -- nm
Posted by
Mop🧹 (aka rburriel)
Jun 27 '23, 17:11
(No message)
Responses:
If it violates standards they never should have run but I don’t see how you refund on that -- nm
-
VMan
Jun 27, 17:13
they're already getting sued out the yin-yang over their ads, what's another class action? -- nm
-
hollywood big shot
Jun 27, 17:13
5
My company feels pretty confident about our odds at winning.
-
Dark Callisto 🦊
Jun 27, 19:01
Note that the article says "standards" (not binding?) while to poster said terms of service (binding?)
-
Mop🧹
Jun 27, 17:15
3
illusory contracts are illusory -- nm
-
hollywood big shot
Jun 27, 17:17
2
tell that to Kim Basinger! -- nm
-
mafic
Jun 27, 18:00
But are they metaphorically binding? -- nm
-
Mop
Jun 27, 17:41
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
