It's totally reasonable for Google to draw the line somewhere in an exceptionally crowded presidential race. Imagine if anybody could get around Google's fraud controls by just declaring yourself a presidential candidate.
It is a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to claim that having to configure a few dozen presidential candidate's accounts is tantamount to letting "anybody" get around Google's fraud controls.
I could understand your line of reasoning if the figure was on the order of 100s or more. But when we are talking about less than 50 candidates, this is a ridiculous claim that comes off as a weak attempt to deceive your audience via false dichotomy.
> It is a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to claim that having to configure a few dozen presidential candidate's accounts
Even without it being a route around Google fraud controls, there are 791 declared Presidential candidates for 2020, which is a little more than “a few dozen”. [0]
> I could understand your line of reasoning if the figure was on the order of 100s or more.
But...it is; heck, there's close to 300 Democratic candidates. And it would be even more if it was a route around Google fraud controls.
Okay, thanks for the information. I suppose I was referring to those candidates which met the threshold of support to be included in the debates on national television. And indeed, that seems to be a reasonable place to "draw the line", in my opinion. There is a very high likelihood that anyone speaking on national TV would be searched on Google.
Tulsi Gabbard falls well within the category of candidates. So, while I concede that the line ought be drawn, I still believe the post I responded to was arguing in bad faith, given Hubbard's popularity
It seems not too difficult to turn them on equally for every candidate that made the debate and had to qualify with either a polling or a donator threshold.
