3 ms·
This seems to be an inherent problem with the ad network model. You've got 3 or 4 different parties involved in the current ad system: The content publisher wh
by bunderbunder 9y ago
This seems to be an inherent problem with the ad network model.
You've got 3 or 4 different parties involved in the current ad system: The content publisher who host the ads, the ad network, the advertisers, and, possibly, the company the advertiser hires to write the ad. And it's not like old school print ads where the content publisher gets to look over a proof before everything gets sent out. Several of these parties either don't or can't really understand how the ads really work and what the final product is going to be like.
In this kind of situation, whose responsibility is it to maintain integrity and keep the bad actors out? I'm not sure that it's anybody's. _Maybe_ it's the ad network's, but, realistically, they're sitting on top of an immensely complex system that is going to be very hard to police properly, so they won't spend the money on it unless they're forced to.
I suspect that the only way to force them to do it is to have a court find that an ad network hosting a malignant ad is either tortious, or makes them an accessory to a crime.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> In this kind of situation, whose responsibility is it to maintain integrity and keep the bad actors out? Publishers bear liability for serving up malware to their readers; ad networks for serving up malware to the publishers. We're just waiting for an enterprising lawyer/litigation financier to put the pieces together.
- bunderbunder 9y agoI don't know that the liability question is so clear cut. Is there any relevant legal precedent?
- manicdee 9y agoIf someone in the ad delivery chain doesn’t take responsibility, they won’t be selling ads for long. When it’s not malware it’s bitcoin miners. Actually … hang it, just thinking about where the threshold is has taken up too much of my time. I will just block all ads.