5 ms·

I would suggest Bloomberg and other media research what can be done to educate people that advertisers sometimes, once in a while, aren't spending money in orde

I would suggest Bloomberg and other media research what can be done to educate people that advertisers sometimes, once in a while, aren't spending money in order to make people's lives better. To be clear, the parties behind these sham recovery centers are scum that deserve any and every legal repercussion available. And, if illegal, no Google shouldn't do business with them. But the bottom line reason why Google didn't act faster was because they weren't per se illegal, but more so loophole exploiters. Policy makers subsidized an industry and, learning nothing from every other subsidy in the history of the world, forgot that subsidies invite bad actors. (Calling coverage of medical treatment a 'subsidy' is admittedly somewhat of a stretch, but in the context of all the medical issues that health insurance does not cover I stand by the label. E.g., German public health insurance used to cover 'prescriptions' for sun and relaxation, until it became abused by people taking taxpayer subsidized vacations. Designations of coverage have a similar effect as a subsidy, at the very least.) This path we're heading down of expecting "the internet" to protect us from the latest baddies out there worries me on a much deeper level. And I don't see this as a 'slippery slope' argument: this is just looking at existing data points and following the trajectory. The current direction is worrying, without regard for the potential of acceleration. Exploitive ads have been around forever -- from the literal snake oil salesmen to the ads in every newspaper, magazine and yellow pages to the present. Hard cases make bad law. That's a maxim that is depressingly unpopular today.

659087 9y ago
> This path we're heading down of expecting "the internet" to protect us from the latest baddies out there worries me This isn't expecting "the internet" to do anything, though. It's expecting Google, a corporation, to stop helping bad actors promote their "services". While Google would love to be "the internet", they aren't quite there yet.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  I'm sympathetic towards the argument that Google should do more, but besides banning these advertisements overall, how should Google verify a legitimate clinic vs an illegitimate clinic? Would these proposed solutions actually get in the way of scammers, or would they just add to the cost of doing business with no real gain for consumers?
  - apendleton 9y ago
    The states (most, at least, and I think all) already take care of the verifying: you need a license to operate a treatment center. Google should require that they submit information about their state licensure to run a treatment facility. Patient brokers and sham operators presumably aren't licensed treatment providers and wouldn't be able to meet that standard, and if they're found to be falsifying their documentation, rather than just being booted from adwords they should be turned over to their respective states for criminal prosecution.
    - othersideofcoin 9y ago
      I work in the addiction industry, on the marketing side. I can tell you that the licensure requirements are generally a joke. Only Florida, California, and maybe a couple other states are tougher to open a treatment center instead of, say, getting licensed as a hair stylist. Until the past year or so, all levels of government were unable to track down the shady operators. IMO, it's not Google's job to do what law enforcement was unwilling to do. (Now, Google could be extra ethical on this, but why would they be? Generally, we expect corporations to follow law enforcements lead, rather than hold them to a higher standard.)
      - smallnamespace 9y ago
        I think the topology of information flow should determine who is responsible for doing what. If Google is practically speaking the gatekeeper for these kind of shady dealers (because it sees both the consumer demand and the bad actors), then the most efficient system is one where Google is given both the responsibility and the tools to do the regulation. In fact, Google might be in a better position to regulate this than the states are. What should the states do -- individually browse for ads on Google and then call up those places? This still places Google front and center. This is the same reason central planning is a horribly inefficient system -- yes, in principle you can have the entire economy send their data to the central government, then the central gov't comes up with a plan and redistributes it to every factory -- but in practice a lot goes wrong in putting so many links.
- ballenf 9y ago
  I'm taking issue with the increasing prevalent view as represented in this Bloomberg article that has an unstated assumption that it's reasonable to expect or even demand that actors such as Google take measures to make these moral judgments. If Google wants to and chooses to, great. But if they don't, I'd much rather see an article warning the public about the dangers of trusting Google ads rather than bemoaning that its easy for bad actors to buy Google ads. And Google isn't 'helping' bad actors unless they charge them less than others or otherwise create an unfair advantage. Otherwise they're a neutral actor that is a reflection of a failed policy and/or law enforcement problem.
  - radicalbyte 9y ago
    Bloomberg is in the Advertising business, they'll never take the stance that you shouldn't trust advertising. Their customers won't accept that. So we get this. Blame google.
kosi28 9y ago
pfft...Google is more bothered about putting electric thread into Levi Jackets and Lidar on top of our cars. All this shit involving real people and real problems is beneath them. And people like you make it easier for them to stay up there in their Ivory Towers. Keep it up.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Well, don't scoff at wearable electronics just because they're mostly LEDs and NFC chips right now. If we can figure out how to make something both stretchy and conductive, there's a lot of practical opportunity. What if your knee/elbow/wrist/etc brace had a small alarm to go off when you start to overextend it during recovery? What if your jacket had a button to quickly mark precise GPS spots in the field for later follow-up inspections? What if your shirt could adaptively nag people about their posture during the 4 hours they spend seated every day? Heck, you could cobble the GPS jacket together today with off-the-shelf parts; it'd just look strange and probably be fragile/uncomfortable to wear. As for self-driving cars not involving 'real people and problems,' I just don't understand what you mean by that; could you elaborate?
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    That, and it's not like the people working on the wearable electronics could suddenly drop that and become people vetting ads.
- sctb 9y ago
  Could you please not go off on tangents, especially with personal barbs like this?

659087 9y ago

> This path we're heading down of expecting "the internet" to protect us from the latest baddies out there worries me This isn't expecting "the internet" to do anything, though. It's expecting Google, a corporation, to stop helping bad actors promote their "services". While Google would love to be "the internet", they aren't quite there yet.

Eridrus 9y ago
I'm sympathetic towards the argument that Google should do more, but besides banning these advertisements overall, how should Google verify a legitimate clinic vs an illegitimate clinic? Would these proposed solutions actually get in the way of scammers, or would they just add to the cost of doing business with no real gain for consumers?
- apendleton 9y ago
  The states (most, at least, and I think all) already take care of the verifying: you need a license to operate a treatment center. Google should require that they submit information about their state licensure to run a treatment facility. Patient brokers and sham operators presumably aren't licensed treatment providers and wouldn't be able to meet that standard, and if they're found to be falsifying their documentation, rather than just being booted from adwords they should be turned over to their respective states for criminal prosecution.
  - othersideofcoin 9y ago
    I work in the addiction industry, on the marketing side. I can tell you that the licensure requirements are generally a joke. Only Florida, California, and maybe a couple other states are tougher to open a treatment center instead of, say, getting licensed as a hair stylist. Until the past year or so, all levels of government were unable to track down the shady operators. IMO, it's not Google's job to do what law enforcement was unwilling to do. (Now, Google could be extra ethical on this, but why would they be? Generally, we expect corporations to follow law enforcements lead, rather than hold them to a higher standard.)
    - smallnamespace 9y ago
      I think the topology of information flow should determine who is responsible for doing what. If Google is practically speaking the gatekeeper for these kind of shady dealers (because it sees both the consumer demand and the bad actors), then the most efficient system is one where Google is given both the responsibility and the tools to do the regulation. In fact, Google might be in a better position to regulate this than the states are. What should the states do -- individually browse for ads on Google and then call up those places? This still places Google front and center. This is the same reason central planning is a horribly inefficient system -- yes, in principle you can have the entire economy send their data to the central government, then the central gov't comes up with a plan and redistributes it to every factory -- but in practice a lot goes wrong in putting so many links.
ballenf 9y ago
I'm taking issue with the increasing prevalent view as represented in this Bloomberg article that has an unstated assumption that it's reasonable to expect or even demand that actors such as Google take measures to make these moral judgments. If Google wants to and chooses to, great. But if they don't, I'd much rather see an article warning the public about the dangers of trusting Google ads rather than bemoaning that its easy for bad actors to buy Google ads. And Google isn't 'helping' bad actors unless they charge them less than others or otherwise create an unfair advantage. Otherwise they're a neutral actor that is a reflection of a failed policy and/or law enforcement problem.
- radicalbyte 9y ago
  Bloomberg is in the Advertising business, they'll never take the stance that you shouldn't trust advertising. Their customers won't accept that. So we get this. Blame google.

kosi28 9y ago

pfft...Google is more bothered about putting electric thread into Levi Jackets and Lidar on top of our cars. All this shit involving real people and real problems is beneath them. And people like you make it easier for them to stay up there in their Ivory Towers. Keep it up.

leggomylibro 9y ago
Well, don't scoff at wearable electronics just because they're mostly LEDs and NFC chips right now. If we can figure out how to make something both stretchy and conductive, there's a lot of practical opportunity. What if your knee/elbow/wrist/etc brace had a small alarm to go off when you start to overextend it during recovery? What if your jacket had a button to quickly mark precise GPS spots in the field for later follow-up inspections? What if your shirt could adaptively nag people about their posture during the 4 hours they spend seated every day? Heck, you could cobble the GPS jacket together today with off-the-shelf parts; it'd just look strange and probably be fragile/uncomfortable to wear. As for self-driving cars not involving 'real people and problems,' I just don't understand what you mean by that; could you elaborate?
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  That, and it's not like the people working on the wearable electronics could suddenly drop that and become people vetting ads.
sctb 9y ago
Could you please not go off on tangents, especially with personal barbs like this?