4 ms·

With verification, will Google be culpable the next time one of my users is redirected to a tech support scam from a Google ad? At least twice a year at my bus

With verification, will Google be culpable the next time one of my users is redirected to a tech support scam from a Google ad? At least twice a year at my business users are redirected to tech support scams from Google Search ads. Its always a similar story, "I searched for Amazon and clicked the first link".

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Google being culpable for malicious ads will only happen if the US finally removes Section 230 immunity. Until then, they'll keep profiting off criminal activity whilst claiming it's not their fault.
toast0 7y ago
Verifying the (corporate) identity of the advertisers, doesn't affect their responsibility for content (or lack thereof), but it might mean you could sue the advertiser without first needing to get the information on the advertiser from Google.
- annoyingnoob 7y ago
  Good to know that I'll be able to sue a corporation from Antigua that was setup by a shady foreign law firm. I'm sure that will go well and be a good use of my resources. This is all a veil to try and hide the fact that Google wants ads to blend in better with results. Every couple of years Google makes it harder to distinguish ads from content. https://searchengineland.com/search-ad-labeling-history-google-bing-254332 https://searchengineland.com/search-ad-labeling-history-goog...
bootlooped 7y ago
If somebody with a blue check mark on Twitter commits a crime, is Twitter responsible?
- dsl 7y ago
  No, because apparently it's in the public interest that it be seen. See https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-we-cant-block-trump-because-hes-a-world-leader https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-we-cant-block-trump-be...
- annoyingnoob 7y ago
  In your example, did the twitter platform enable the crime? Did the twitter user in your example pay to use the twitter platform that enabled the crime? Is it okay that a search engine looks like malware sometimes? You'd think that Google would want to wipe its ass.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

Google being culpable for malicious ads will only happen if the US finally removes Section 230 immunity. Until then, they'll keep profiting off criminal activity whilst claiming it's not their fault.

toast0 7y ago

Verifying the (corporate) identity of the advertisers, doesn't affect their responsibility for content (or lack thereof), but it might mean you could sue the advertiser without first needing to get the information on the advertiser from Google.

annoyingnoob 7y ago
Good to know that I'll be able to sue a corporation from Antigua that was setup by a shady foreign law firm. I'm sure that will go well and be a good use of my resources. This is all a veil to try and hide the fact that Google wants ads to blend in better with results. Every couple of years Google makes it harder to distinguish ads from content. https://searchengineland.com/search-ad-labeling-history-google-bing-254332 https://searchengineland.com/search-ad-labeling-history-goog...

bootlooped 7y ago

If somebody with a blue check mark on Twitter commits a crime, is Twitter responsible?

dsl 7y ago
No, because apparently it's in the public interest that it be seen. See https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-we-cant-block-trump-because-hes-a-world-leader https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-we-cant-block-trump-be...
annoyingnoob 7y ago
In your example, did the twitter platform enable the crime? Did the twitter user in your example pay to use the twitter platform that enabled the crime? Is it okay that a search engine looks like malware sometimes? You'd think that Google would want to wipe its ass.