6 ms·

Here's the core of the issue. Google may be making over one billion dollars from ads in this space. However, they say it is "hard for Google to cut off shady

Here's the core of the issue. Google may be making over one billion dollars from ads in this space. However, they say it is "hard for Google to cut off shady treatment providers unless someone tipped off the company." Surely, with a small portion of that one billion dollars, they could figure out a solution. Of course, they have no interest in actually solving this type of situation, which is widespread across many verticals. In one of my markets, I have repeatedly complained about deceptive advertisers. They've done next-to-nothing to stop them. I used to be against ad blocking software.

086421357909764 9y ago
It's the same argument for Facebook and questionable ads (IE current news). If you are a company making money in the ad space, you'll err on the side of money 9 times out of 10.
- Zigurd 9y ago
  Khrushchev was prescient. We sold them the rope. Through an online self serve portal with keyword targeting.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  We are really just asking for that 1 of 10 here. It's amazing what you can advertise on Google without penalty.
zeep 9y ago
Maybe the issue is that there is no consequences for promoting known crooks...
leggomylibro 9y ago
What, do you want companies to be responsible for the negative externalities of their products? Next you'll want oil companies to pay for cleaning up their messes, and banks to pay for financial crises, and data processors to take responsibility for their huge data breaches. That's crazy talk - where are we, the people's republic of canada?
- goialoq 9y ago
  And you'll want Verizon to monitor the content of your phone calls to catch fraudsters. Oh, wait, what was the narrative again?
  - cooper12 9y ago
    Yawn, muh slippery slope. According to people like you, we should never do anything because it might result on something. Don't invent strawmen arguments. No one is saying anything about phone calls here.
    - trentmb 9y ago
      Epic takedown brah.
      - cooper12 9y ago
        Thanks. Please retweet, subscribe, DDoS my blog, and irradiate my RAM.
  - smt88 9y ago
    Your analogy makes no sense. For Verizon to catch fraudsters, they have to police their customers' behavior. The key is customers' behavior, not their own behavior. Oil companies don't need to violate customers' privacy to clean up oil. They don't need to do anything negative to customers at all. The same is true of banks paying for financial crises and Equifax paying to privacy damage. All they'd be doing is fixing their own mistakes, not policing their customers or users. As for the relationship with OP: Facebook's users and customers are different. Because such a large percentage of the public uses Facebook, the company's duty to protect its users should come ahead of its duty to protect its customers. If FB kills a few shady corporations, it's not nearly as bad as if those shady corporations harm actual human beings.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
awakeasleep 9y ago
It's an indication that a business is too big to effectively manage, which is fueling a lot of the antitrust sentiment floating around now.
Larrikin 9y ago
>I used to be against ad blocking software Don't be and install ad block on your friends and family's computers whenever you see they don't have it installed
mapster 9y ago
google could use this money to work with state's District Attorneys to go after these bad actors. this is a better solution than engaging in slippery slope of shutting off keywords and the like.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>Surely, with a small portion of that one billion dollars, they could figure out a solution. To what problem? To block ads offering something that is illegal? Illegal based on what laws? To block ads based on offering something that is immoral? Even more subjective. To block ads on offering something harmful? Still subjective, and it brings up other questions about things that are moral, legal, but harmful being blocked. Take a country which is running an add campaign to encourage its citizens to have more kids. Pregnancy is harmful to the body, so should such adds be blocked? To block ads that not blocking will result in outrage (internet only or not) that costs more in value than the ads bring in? That's a pretty hard problem to create a general solution, and even attempting to could be an issue because it can be interpreted to mean that they are more focused on making money that stopping illegal, immoral, or harmful things. I mean, I think they are more concerned with money making, but that is just one of those things one doesn't freely admit regardless of how true it may be.
- JacobJans 9y ago
  Ironically, the problem is advertisements that violate Google's own policies, and are in violation of the "rules" set by Adwords.

086421357909764 9y ago

It's the same argument for Facebook and questionable ads (IE current news). If you are a company making money in the ad space, you'll err on the side of money 9 times out of 10.

Zigurd 9y ago
Khrushchev was prescient. We sold them the rope. Through an online self serve portal with keyword targeting.
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
We are really just asking for that 1 of 10 here. It's amazing what you can advertise on Google without penalty.

zeep 9y ago

Maybe the issue is that there is no consequences for promoting known crooks...

leggomylibro 9y ago

What, do you want companies to be responsible for the negative externalities of their products? Next you'll want oil companies to pay for cleaning up their messes, and banks to pay for financial crises, and data processors to take responsibility for their huge data breaches. That's crazy talk - where are we, the people's republic of canada?

goialoq 9y ago
And you'll want Verizon to monitor the content of your phone calls to catch fraudsters. Oh, wait, what was the narrative again?
- cooper12 9y ago
  Yawn, muh slippery slope. According to people like you, we should never do anything because it might result on something. Don't invent strawmen arguments. No one is saying anything about phone calls here.
  - trentmb 9y ago
    Epic takedown brah.
    - cooper12 9y ago
      Thanks. Please retweet, subscribe, DDoS my blog, and irradiate my RAM.
- smt88 9y ago
  Your analogy makes no sense. For Verizon to catch fraudsters, they have to police their customers' behavior. The key is customers' behavior, not their own behavior. Oil companies don't need to violate customers' privacy to clean up oil. They don't need to do anything negative to customers at all. The same is true of banks paying for financial crises and Equifax paying to privacy damage. All they'd be doing is fixing their own mistakes, not policing their customers or users. As for the relationship with OP: Facebook's users and customers are different. Because such a large percentage of the public uses Facebook, the company's duty to protect its users should come ahead of its duty to protect its customers. If FB kills a few shady corporations, it's not nearly as bad as if those shady corporations harm actual human beings.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

awakeasleep 9y ago

It's an indication that a business is too big to effectively manage, which is fueling a lot of the antitrust sentiment floating around now.

Larrikin 9y ago

>I used to be against ad blocking software Don't be and install ad block on your friends and family's computers whenever you see they don't have it installed

mapster 9y ago

google could use this money to work with state's District Attorneys to go after these bad actors. this is a better solution than engaging in slippery slope of shutting off keywords and the like.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>Surely, with a small portion of that one billion dollars, they could figure out a solution. To what problem? To block ads offering something that is illegal? Illegal based on what laws? To block ads based on offering something that is immoral? Even more subjective. To block ads on offering something harmful? Still subjective, and it brings up other questions about things that are moral, legal, but harmful being blocked. Take a country which is running an add campaign to encourage its citizens to have more kids. Pregnancy is harmful to the body, so should such adds be blocked? To block ads that not blocking will result in outrage (internet only or not) that costs more in value than the ads bring in? That's a pretty hard problem to create a general solution, and even attempting to could be an issue because it can be interpreted to mean that they are more focused on making money that stopping illegal, immoral, or harmful things. I mean, I think they are more concerned with money making, but that is just one of those things one doesn't freely admit regardless of how true it may be.

JacobJans 9y ago
Ironically, the problem is advertisements that violate Google's own policies, and are in violation of the "rules" set by Adwords.