3 ms·
Well said. If you don't want to be criticized for sending your customers malware... get better control over the the third party scripts on your site. Trusting
by cwkoss 7y ago
Well said.
If you don't want to be criticized for sending your customers malware... get better control over the the third party scripts on your site. Trusting a negligent third-party actor is negligent in itself.
If NYT is willing to sell out it's readers to sketchy internet ad providers, what assurances do we have that they won't also sell-out readers to intentional paid propaganda? Slippery slope for an organization rooted in journalistic integrity. Does management have controls in place for this?
- GoRudy 7y agoWe've had spam originate from google in the past, honestly they're by far the best source of good quality demand and even they occasionally have spam get through. Better control of third party scripts is a good point, minimize the number of networks and focusing on quality is important but it's not a guarantee spammers won't get through.
- cwkoss 7y agoGoogle is negligent in failing to block malware ads. They chose how to build their system, and they could have build a system without this vulnerability (but it would be less profitable). Just because they are the biggest certainly doesn't mean they are ethically innocent here. They choose to maintain a business model that requires third party scripts - which is a conscious decision to harm the audience at the expense of their patrons. Their greed needs to be called out, or else people will continue using them as a shield against any critical call for improvement in the fraud-rampant online ad economy. Google may be the best there is, but that says more about the lack of morals in the ad industry than Google's high-ground.