3 ms·
It is quite exaggerated to say that a significant portion of Google's revenue comes from serving malicious content. But malicious content (even on the SERP) is
by NathanKP 10y ago
It is quite exaggerated to say that a significant portion of Google's revenue comes from serving malicious content.
But malicious content (even on the SERP) is common enough that one of the most effective steps that you can do to protect senior citizens from malware is to install a good ad blocker. The ironic thing is that the search algorithm does a decent job of filtering out malicious sites from appearing on the first page, but that does no good if there is a malicious ad right above the filtered results.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoThat's a key point. Google's primary business model relies on convincing you to not click on the "best search result". This is why they have, over time, reduced the visible difference between ads and real results. I've regularly found that lay users are not aware they are clicking on ads when they click on Google's search ads. Even if Google is removing "x million bad ads", they are merely replacing bad ads with other bad ads. Removing bad ads doesn't significantly impact their revenue. I'd argue that while Google is willing to make gestures like removing some ads, they are unwilling to do what's necessary to protect users: Stop serving ads entirely where malicious ads are particularly prevalent, and clearly highlight the difference between ads and search results. EDIT: Here's some captures I did this morning of Google results on incognito: https://oasis.sandstorm.io/shared/nTZcQOHrTgnM-90dAfmut0AX_cQj_dZPMXkOihQBDwd https://oasis.sandstorm.io/shared/nTZcQOHrTgnM-90dAfmut0AX_c...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]