3 ms·

This wasn't the case already? I could have run a controversial ad to ruin someone's name?

by number6 7y ago

cm2187 7y ago
Or spread malware through embedded ads
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Search ads have been the canonical leading way my clients have ever seen malware. I find Google search ads less regulated and less filtered than spam emails. I'm really glad they're finally doing this, but it still feels way too irresponsibly late considering the amount of damage they've caused.
  - dx034 7y ago
    And Google is still one of the least affected markets. If you look at other ad marketplaces, they often tend to have larger amounts of malware spread through their system. Mostly because Google at least has somewhat decent detection algorithms and a large enough team that can take down large scale malware 24x7.
- adam1210 7y ago
  This is a massive problem in my experience; even if I report the ads spreading malware to Google they don't ever take them down.
ggggtez 7y ago
You could have. And that would have been a crime. But contrary to popular opinion, tech companies are not a branch of the police force. So they have no obligation to help the police prosecute people without a warrant.
- slg 7y ago
  >So they have no legal obligation to help the police prosecute people without a warrant. FTFY. They may not have a legal obligation to help prevent or prosecute crimes, but there is definitely a moral obligation to not knowingly allow your product to become an easy accessory to crime. Lots of tech companies abdicate that moral responsibility.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Some propose that but in practice that requirement isn't sane. Carmakers can't stop their cars from being used to run people down and the [[ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit Evil Bit]] was a joke. Many downright reject the "permission first/absolutr safety" standard as harmful and impossible.
    - skavi 7y ago
      > Carmakers can't stop their cars from being used to run people down The technology definitely exists to limit this, and many car companies already offer such safety features.
- code_duck 7y ago
  If you mean libel, it's only a crime if what you claim is false. In the US, anyway. From what I understand, in some countries in Europe it only has to be an attempt to defame someone, whether it's true or not.

This wasn't the case already? I could have run a controversial ad to ruin someone's name?

cm2187 7y ago

Or spread malware through embedded ads

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Search ads have been the canonical leading way my clients have ever seen malware. I find Google search ads less regulated and less filtered than spam emails. I'm really glad they're finally doing this, but it still feels way too irresponsibly late considering the amount of damage they've caused.
- dx034 7y ago
  And Google is still one of the least affected markets. If you look at other ad marketplaces, they often tend to have larger amounts of malware spread through their system. Mostly because Google at least has somewhat decent detection algorithms and a large enough team that can take down large scale malware 24x7.
adam1210 7y ago
This is a massive problem in my experience; even if I report the ads spreading malware to Google they don't ever take them down.

ggggtez 7y ago

You could have. And that would have been a crime. But contrary to popular opinion, tech companies are not a branch of the police force. So they have no obligation to help the police prosecute people without a warrant.

slg 7y ago
>So they have no legal obligation to help the police prosecute people without a warrant. FTFY. They may not have a legal obligation to help prevent or prosecute crimes, but there is definitely a moral obligation to not knowingly allow your product to become an easy accessory to crime. Lots of tech companies abdicate that moral responsibility.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Some propose that but in practice that requirement isn't sane. Carmakers can't stop their cars from being used to run people down and the [[ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit Evil Bit]] was a joke. Many downright reject the "permission first/absolutr safety" standard as harmful and impossible.
  - skavi 7y ago
    > Carmakers can't stop their cars from being used to run people down The technology definitely exists to limit this, and many car companies already offer such safety features.
code_duck 7y ago
If you mean libel, it's only a crime if what you claim is false. In the US, anyway. From what I understand, in some countries in Europe it only has to be an attempt to defame someone, whether it's true or not.