11 ms·

Google and Microsoft have opaque and unpredictable ad moderation

184 points by danuker 5y ago

CogitoCogito 5y ago
> There’s no bad intent here — nobody targets me personally, who even cares about me. It’s a constant error in the processes that came, probably, from a good place — but it’s no better for me. Nobody will fix this error. This is the truth and it's very depressing. I would personally support either legislation forcing Google to be more transparent of these bans or legislation ripping the company apart so that they don't own the ad exchange, as well as sell ads themselves, as well as everything else they have integrated. One can only dream...
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  I think it's bad business to be this opaque and to not point to a specific policy detail. There's also a case to be made for whether the outsized impact of such refusals is evidence in favor of a company being a harmful monopoly; I think it's certainly supporting evidence in that direction. On the other hand, this post talks about having a similar response from Microsoft, and those companies didn't collude; they just have similar policies, likely for similar reasons. This may have been a false positive, or on the other hand, it might be a true positive; we don't know much about this business or why they were declined, but for instance the mention of "get out of debt" in this context sounds shady, and "sounds shady" is not an unreasonable threshold for denying an ad. I also think "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" applies no matter who you are. I don't support the idea of legislation that forces giving detailed policy responses, or any responses at all. Google (and others) have formed a business around having policies so automated that half the people involved might not even know what the policy is, just "computer says no" or "computer flagged it and someone somewhere in the review process said no". I don't think that practice should be banned; on the contrary, it should be possible to try the approach of using automation to be able to scale. And that's a potential opportunity for other competitors; one demonstrated path to success in competing with a company like Google is providing better support and real human interaction. If it turns out that a company is succeeding in spite of awful service, it might be because their product is just that good to overcome that deficiency, or it might also be because their monopoly prevents people from competing with them even with a better product. That's worth examining. But I don't think that's an argument that people should be forced to explain why they don't want to do business with someone; I think that's an argument that we should make sure that it's possible to compete fairly and offer better service to people who want better service.
  - dkzlv 5y ago
    Hi! Author's here. > On the other hand, this post talks about having a similar response from Microsoft, and those companies didn't collude As I wrote, I got the ban from Microsoft minutes after Google even before I created an ad or told them what site I planned to advertise. So my guess is that they do exchange data about potential fraudsters. > applies no matter who you are In this case we're talking about a monopoly that is the internet's gatekeeper. If they decide they can refuse their service to us, we die, no guesses. Is that the right way?
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    > I also think "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" applies no matter who you are. It should never apply to monopolies. Governments should always go to all extent into making sure a market is competitive, or make sure things like that do not happen. The preference should obviously be the first one.
    - JoshTriplett 5y ago
      I agree; my argument is that that means we should consider if there's a monopoly issue. We shouldn't write new universal rules to address behaviors that only work if you're a monopoly; we should determine if there's abuse of a monopoly going on, and if so, treat the monopoly as the problem to fix. Doing otherwise risks saying "well, the monopoly is OK, as long as you fix this specific thing", and even entrenching those monopolies further. (For instance, even if you believe that it's acceptable to mandate explaining every refusal to do business with someone, taking the time to explain policies to everyone is something that may in some cases be easier for a large company but prohibitively hard for a smaller one.) If you're abusing a monopoly in a way that prevents other people from coming in and doing better than you, that's the issue, not the specific manifestation of how you're abusing it.
metalliqaz 5y ago
I find the writing style of this article very difficult to read. What we are seeing here is just one result of the Internet being dominated by a small handful of companies. Ad networks, social media, app stores, search ranks... it all stems from the same root cause.
turnerc 5y ago
> None of my friends could tell me the specific reasons why I was banned. It’s mostly because they do not understand their own rules It's because policies are in place to prevent them from doing so, you won't get special treatment or they will be out of a job. Without seeing the Ad data it's hard to say but Financial products have a lot of policy in place and it's not enough to be ready to provide certification, in some instances you must do this beforehand.
- trentnix 5y ago
  Who watches the Watchmen?
  - xnyan 5y ago
    In the case of a company offering a paid service? Nobody. Why should the government force you to publish ads you don't want to host on your own private servers?
    - trentnix 5y ago
      Who said anything about forcing them to run any ads? While the policies that prevent even insiders from finding out why some ad or another was banned to avoid special treatment, they also have the side-effect of being opaque to conceal arbitrary, malicious, or insidious motivations. After all, I'd assume if there are good, clear, generally agreed-to reasons why some ad (or even some account) should not have access to Google services, transparency would justify as much. But without transparency, it's inevitable that there will be abuse. Odds are, there already has been. And Google benefits keeping that behind the curtain.
treeman79 5y ago
My first quick impression of the Ad. Oh it’s for laundering money. I had to reread it a few times to realize that’s not what is meant.
trentnix 5y ago
> There’s no bad intent here — nobody targets me personally, who even cares about me. It’s a constant error in the processes that came, probably, from a good place — but it’s no better for me. You got crushed all the same. The fact that it wasn't malicious just makes sure nobody will suffer any consequences for it. Except you, of course. And even if it was malicious, the veil of "processes" and "policy" will be sufficient to smother any investigation.
LatteLazy 5y ago
I actually think it's a real problem not only for advertising but all over the place where tech companies act as middle me like this. Some of my favourite YT creators have been banned for no reason, banned for impersonating themselves etc. I'd like to see a requirement to improve this process. I don't think it's about privacy though. I think Google have to deal with 100,000,000 ad customers. They have to have guidelines for PR reasons and they need to do all of this for fractions of a penny per impression. So they do it badly.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Maybe if their customerbase is too big for them to do the right thing, then maybe its time to break them up.
  - throwaways885 5y ago
    Okay, I'll bite. How do you break up a website? Whichever Baby G ends up with Search will create it's own Ads department, and things will be back to the status quo in no time. The best I can imagine is breaking it by country lines, but realistically, the US will never agree to that.
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      Is Google just a website? It is an entire effing ecosystem, and that ecosystem gives them too much power, and powers their ad network too. My photos are stored in Google Photos. My email is Gmail. My files are in Drive. I use Google Fi for mobile. My map use and my phone location are in Google's servers. Google controls for all intents and purposes Android, and the Play Store. I use Google Docs. I use Duck Duck Go, but also Google Search. I could go on. Google analytics is installed on nearly ever web site. Google controls the premiere ad network, and the most popular web browser in the world. But let's not forget their Chrome OS. All of that is being leveraged, not just its liddle search engine. Break them up. Into many tiny pieces. Dozens even.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    The issue is the margins are too thin. 2 hemi-googles would have the exact same issue. You can't spend 100USD vetting and giving feedback on a 10usds worth of ad. That's true whether you're doing it for 1 customer or 100m. Unless competition means half these sites close and ad prices go way way up... This is the core issue under a lot of big tech complaints. The same basic logic applies to fake news on social media, counterfeit products on amazon, even scam calls on land line networks. I would like to see a lot less of this "moderation". But that means people have to accept there might be more ads for scams or gambling or alcohol. Instead they want more moderation. And that means more expense AND more mistakes and unresponsive mega corps.
jeroenhd 5y ago
Looking at the ad they placed, I'd have considered this ad as a scam. Starting an ad with [safe] tells me that the product is instead unsafe. Safeapps.io isn't exactly a very convincing domain either. The, uh, "design language" the website uses would be the final nail in the coffin. The entire thing just looks like a badly built scam. Every individual decision can maybe be explained as a branding or design choice, but the end product just doesn't look reliable. I don't think Google gives a shit about your blog articles about how Google is bad, every tech company has written one of those at this point. They're also not as much anti-privacy, they're anti-anti-anti-privacy. A privacy focused product is fine, a product that prevents Google from stalking you not so much. It'd definitely be a false positive, but the truth is that if I saw this ad, I'd definitely click the "report" button.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  I'm 100% behind you on this. Worth noting that while the app does appear to be open-source, there appears to be no way for you to self-host the service at the moment. Regardless of how scammy it actually is, funneling every user into a $60/year subscription service is one of the biggest scamming tactics I've seen on the web.
  - dkzlv 5y ago
    Is it a scam to charge a price for a product? We're freemium. You're not forced to get a subscription right away. You can even use the product without it at all. > there appears to be no way for you to self-host the service at the moment We will provide such an option if there will be any demand. For now it would just waste a lot of our time without any real output. Still, you can do this if you want.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Consider this the beginning of the demand, then: I'm not going to use this service unless I can self-host it.
      - 5y ago
randy408 5y ago
This reminds me of Google hiding ProtonMail from their search results: https://protonmail.com/blog/search-risk-google/ https://protonmail.com/blog/search-risk-google/
andrewnicolalde 5y ago
This is an aside but check out their security page: https://safeapps.io/content/security https://safeapps.io/content/security That’s what I’d like to see from any security page!
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Thanks! Most of our competitors say they have "strong encryption", but when you read the page it actually means they have SSL. Or that they use SHA256 for hashing the passwords. That is… disappointing.
TameAntelope 5y ago
I think a reasonable law we could pass in the US is that a company of a certain size or larger has to have some way of speaking to a human being about conducting business with that company. I also think companies should be able to determine that working with another company is too risky, such as what happened here. Do we really think people are entitled to use Google or Microsoft services? If so, shouldn't those services just be nationalized?
- lutorm 5y ago
  It's probably more reasonable to invoke antitrust if companies have such a dominant position that getting banned from one dooms your business.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    I'm not convinced that fits our current antitrust laws, or even how you would legislate that.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      Antitrust laws address many things, but they tend to focus on a firm's, or a group of firms, ability to either control prices or exclude competition. I'd argue that this incident could be seen as a group of firms preventing another firm from competing.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "If so, shouldn't those services just be nationalized?" This definitely doesn't (and shouldn't) follow from an entity receiving a common carrier-type designation.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    My understanding was that Section 230 is just a legal shortcut to shorten how long a case takes to arrive at the, "Oh, this is their First Amendment right as a private company." conclusion. Were Section 230 to be revoked, my understanding is that no change would actually occur, other than cases related to it taking longer.
ademup 5y ago
I wonder if it has something to do with the brackets. [safe] looks wrong to me (like a placeholder, or a word that was auto-replaced by a spyware detector). Because yeah, nothing seems to be amiss in the ad. Sorry to see you so poorly treated by the tech giants.
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Hi! Author's here. Hell, it's AN INNOVATION I came up with — or at least so I thought I thought most people would be able to see this name instantly BECAUSE of the brackets, lol. Thanks for your sympathy, I appreciate it.
api 5y ago
I will pay for a higher quality search engine that respects privacy and gives me greater control over the search process with advanced search tools. I don't think I am alone.
heavyset_go 5y ago
If you're in the US, contact your state's Attorney General, and the US AG, offices. It looks like they're gearing up for antitrust action, and this is a good example of how large companies' anticompetitive behavior is stifling innovation and destroying small businesses.
tyingq 5y ago
Not that you should have to, but words like "Home Budget and Finance Tracking" would make it more clear what it is. Lead with that generic terminology. Then sprinkle in the "encryption" stuff. Leading with "Encryption" and "Finance" is probably what caused the ban. It got put in the bucket of "shady crypto currency stuff" or "internet money laundering". Though, yes, it's a shame the system doesn't first issue a warning, and let you reply with a message to a real human with context before a ban happens.
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Hi! Author's here. We submitted multiple appeals, but they were all declines — presumably, by real humans. I appreciate your feedback on the copy though. I guess, no harm in trying.
bdcravens 5y ago
I personally think the way the ad was written it seems to suggest anonymous transactions (not the case of course), but I also would look at this statement: "we do not impersonate other brands" The domain is safeapps.io. Not only does this name seem very similar to other applications, some of which are on the Google Play (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hopehealing.safeapp&hl=en_US&gl=US https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hopehealin...), a service provider (https://safemoney.com/ https://safemoney.com/) and even a US military domain (https://safe.apps.mil/ https://safe.apps.mil/). Additionally, on the page the word "safe" doesn't even show up, suggesting the domain name is a squat. I don't believe that it's a squat, but the author is jumping to some big conclusions without looking at some potential causes.
- grayhatter 5y ago
  You're right, of course... but it would be nice if they didn't have to make assumptions, or jump to these conclusions though wouldn't it?
- armoredkitten 5y ago
  Bad design, but if you hold your mouse over the "[] money" logo at the top, the word "safe" appears. I don't really understand why someone would choose to create a design that actively hides their own branding...but the word is there.
  - bdcravens 5y ago
    Yeah, I didn't see that. I can't imagine what that does for accessibility.
ThePhysicist 5y ago
To be honest, after reading the privacy policy of the service (https://safeapps.io/content/privacy https://safeapps.io/content/privacy) I would not trust them with my financial data. No properly registered company is named and the policy says things like The personal information we collect is stored and/or processed in United States, Netherlands, and Russian Federation, or where we or our partners, affiliates, and third-party providers maintain facilities. How is that privacy-first or even legal? That clause alone is in direct violation of GDPR and CCPA. So I'm not surprised that this got banned.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  How does this violate GDPR?
  - ThePhysicist 5y ago
    You can't store EU resident's data in the Russian Federation as the laws there do not provide an adequate level of data protection. Likewise you can't store it in the US in principle, although the situation is more complicated there legally. The CCPA has similar requirements regarding data residency for data belonging to US citizens as far as I know (not an expert on that though). Also, the website does not name a data protection representative in the EU. In fact, I couldn't find any information about the country that the company is based in (I assume Russia), or if there even is a registered company to begin with, which is another no-go. If you want to operate a privacy-first service you should at least make sure the basic formalities are met, and that includes naming who exactly is processing your data for which purposes.
- freeone3000 5y ago
  A reasonable assumption would be that EU data is processed in the Netherlands, Russian data is processed in the Russian Federation, and that Rest-of-World data is processed in the US. This complies with all of the listed regulations, but it would be nice to have this explicitly broken down.
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Author's here. It is a standard privacy policy generated by getterms.io. We have no data on you. You can read about our security model here (https://safeapps.io/content/security https://safeapps.io/content/security) and walk through our source code here (https://github.com/safeapps-io https://github.com/safeapps-io). TL;DR: every bit of data you create within the product is encrypted in the browser. The server only sees a blob of encrypted bits, that's all. You can sign up without an email. But if you do, we use Sparkpost for sending emails, which is a EU-based ISP. We do not have any third-party scripts or cookies across all the site at all. No Google Analytics, no Facebook Pixel, no Intercom support chat. We use German hosting and I'm personally from Russia. So no, we do not violate GDPR (but we do violate Russian laws because we do not have any servers in Russia). And we do take privacy seriously.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Google gets lots is shit for having opaque customer support, the problem is I have never seen any suggestions that wouldn't actually create worse problems. No offense to the poster, but everything about this service, the ad, the copy, etc. make me think "major scam". If you are offering a legitimate service, it looks like you're trying as hard as possible to be confused as a scam. So, from Google's perspective, when they see this, they respond with some generic "this looks like a scam" response, but obviously if they gave enough detail on every little thing to fix it would make scammers' lives much easier. So while I've seen other cases where accounts have been frozen, etc. with little recourse, and I have a ton of sympathy, in this case I'm ok with Google making it hard to sign up if something looks this much like a scam.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  I'm really confused by your whole argument. Is it a scam? If it is not a scam, why does it matter that their ad looks like a scam? Should companies be banned for poor ad design? edit: It would nice if the downvoters could explain their thoughts.
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    I'll explain. Some scams are actually more effective when they appear like scams, see [1] for the classic example of why Nigerian Prince e-mail scams have intentional bad grammar etc. Any business that is sophisticated enough to build a genuine product is also usually sophisticated enough to realize that "the message is the medium", that a professional non-scammy appearance is required for most customers to even consider trusting it, and so invest in professional graphic design. This goes doubly or triply so for anything finance-related or that takes your finance credentials -- that requires huge trust. So on those two principles, when something looks like a scam, it much more likely is -- because for certain categories of scams, scammers want it to look that way, and non-scammers don't. "Scammy apperance" is a genuinely meaningful signal in practice. But if you don't believe that, then there's this bridge I'm selling... ;) [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nigerian-scam-emails-are-obvious-2014-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nigerian-scam-emails-are...
jonnycomputer 5y ago
For me, all of this just screams: they are too big, break them up. - can't do business because one business says no? ==> too big, break them up. - too big to give small businesses the time of day, or straight answers? ==> too big, break them up.
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Google has 93% of searches in Europe and 88% in the US. If such a company refuses their services to somebody who is compliant with every single of their publicly shared rule, it's an abuse of their power. And an anti-trust issue. But I didn't offer to break them up. The real solution to this problem, I think, would be to create a transparent process for moderation. That is what the article is about.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Sure. I'm just expressing my own opinion, which is, break them up! Into 5-10 baby googles, 5-10 baby amazons, 5-10 baby facebooks. Unfortunately, regulators get captured, and regulations often present barriers to entry. The process by which you might get a reprieve or compensation for your loss of business might still cost you your business, in legal fees, or in opportunity costs. Monopolies and oligopolies are the problem, and the solution is to break them up.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
KingMachiavelli 5y ago
Instead of "finance tracker" maybe just call it "accounting software"? Since that's what it is? The "[safe]" is confusing since it make's me think there is an not-safe version but this link is to the "safe" version. Like how HN put's [pdf] in URLs that link to PDFs.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
_Nat_ 5y ago
You might want to get some feedback on ads before posting them. Some of the advice you got seems reasonable. Personally, if I had to make an ad for a similar product, I might try to get a good picture of the software graphing something, with a concise, title-like summary of what it does. Miscellaneous opinions: 1. The ad started with "[safe] money". I imagine most people would instantly disregard it as a scam and not bother reading further. 2. The ad references crypto. While crypto can be awesome, it's also great for scammers and the like. So if your ad is already at-risk for looking scam-y, stressing an association with a safe-haven for scammers might not do any favors. 3. The ad has a sentence start with "Tracking", then a line-break. People who want privacy generally don't want to be tracked, so that might be a poor happenstance. 4. It's not immediately clear how the app is end-to-end encrypted. That claim usually makes more sense if it's like a messaging-service, where end-to-end crypto implies security against the server. But if clients are just contacting the server, then "end-to-end" would seem misleading. 5. The ad said "100% open source". Unlike most of the stuff in it, that part does inspire more confidence. So much so that, personally, I might lead with it before even saying what the product is, or else immediately afterward.
- tlogan 5y ago
  And I would also suggest to change website name. safeapps.io is similar to safe.apps.mil. Also safeapps.io does not convey what the app is actually doing. Maybe Open-source-money-manager.com, yet-another-money-manager.com,... Because this app is a money manager - correct?
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Hi! I'm the author. 1. it's hard to judge about that right away. It would be cool to see the ads data beforehand. If I saw the ad performs poorly I would change it obviously. "[safe] money" is our brand, so it would be strange not to start with it. 2. the ad does not reference crypto. We had a mention of it on the landing page, that is all. We allow people to pay with crypto along with banking cards — so it's kind of your decision to go one way or another. 4. its more or less the same. You can be e2ee if you, say, have an encrypted version of Google Drive. e2ee in this case means that even though there's a server (which we also have) it cannot read the data in any way. We're mostly the same. 5. ok, we'll think about it, thanks! Thanks for your detailed feedback.
oehpr 5y ago
This may seem tangential, but reply all did a story about scummy locksmiths falsely reporting locations to google. https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2ho87 https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2ho87 This is relevant because they interview a moderator and they talk about how insufferable these companies are, and how they have a private set of guidelines that they can't reveal that these scam locksmiths are in an never ending battle to subvert. Under this lens, and looking at the ad [safe] provided, I have to agree with other peoples take, it's likely [safe] tripped over a bunch of private moderation rules about crypto and ponzi schemes, and nothing to do with privacy.
- PebblesRox 5y ago
  That wedding ring story at the end of the podcast is amazing!
paxys 5y ago
The article alleges multiple times that they were banned because they are a privacy-first service, but that is definitely incorrect. Many similar companies run ads on Google all the time – VPN providers, alternative browsers, browser extensions, secure email, encrypted messaging. I have seen ads mentioning the exact terms (crypto, blockchain, encryption) they the author alleges are banned. The simpler explanation is that their site got caught by some spam/scam filter.
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Hi, I'm the author. That was my first thought, but the problem is that the site was moderated by actual human beings and all the appeals were still denied. > Many similar companies run ads on Google all the time Like I said in the end of the article, it's a thing that is allowed for established companies, because I too run into such ads all the time. I made this conclusion based on the information provided by my friends working in Google and Microsoft. Again, there's no way I can reliably say the _real_ reason because all Google said was "*Unacceptable Business Practice*" linking to this page. (https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6020955?hl=en#368 https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6020955?hl=en#36...)
cortesoft 5y ago
I won’t comment about the other parts of the post, but I will say that I hate using examples of things that make it through the filter to complain about things that get blocked by a filter. All filters are going to have false positives and false negatives. The fact that they missed some things that they likely meant to block doesn’t really say anything about the stuff they block that they meant to let through.
ydlr 5y ago
I feel bad for the author, but I am perfectly fine with a few false positives if it means more scams are blocked. I'd even be okay if the number of false positives is higher than the actual scams blocked if it meant very very few scams make it through the filters. I think Google should be liable for scams on its network. They should either: 1. Figure out a way to better automate scam filtering, 2. Hire a massive number of people to review each ad, or 3. Downsize their business until they can manage it responsibly. Google is not entitled to their scale. If they cannot responsibly run a business at its current size, they should be forced to downsize until they can.
_def 5y ago
I just want to say that I really want a product like this. About the moderation: it's just like the nightmare with YouTube and Content ID. False positives are better than false negatives when it's about scams and such. But, my God, tech giants just give people a way to sort this stuff out!
deregulateMed 5y ago
Where would I see a Microsoft ad? My corporate laptop doesn't have candy crush on it.
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Among other sites Microsoft serves ads on DuckDuckGo, so if you're a privacy enthusiast, you'll probably see the ad :)
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
Probably Google AI has decided that "encryption" and "finance" in the same sentence means "bitcoin" and banned you automatically.
fabiandesimone 5y ago
If you think Google and Microsoft is opaque you haven't spend much time with Facebook Ads. It's a complete SS.

184 points by danuker 5y ago

> There’s no bad intent here — nobody targets me personally, who even cares about me. It’s a constant error in the processes that came, probably, from a good place — but it’s no better for me. Nobody will fix this error. This is the truth and it's very depressing. I would personally support either legislation forcing Google to be more transparent of these bans or legislation ripping the company apart so that they don't own the ad exchange, as well as sell ads themselves, as well as everything else they have integrated. One can only dream...

JoshTriplett 5y ago
I think it's bad business to be this opaque and to not point to a specific policy detail. There's also a case to be made for whether the outsized impact of such refusals is evidence in favor of a company being a harmful monopoly; I think it's certainly supporting evidence in that direction. On the other hand, this post talks about having a similar response from Microsoft, and those companies didn't collude; they just have similar policies, likely for similar reasons. This may have been a false positive, or on the other hand, it might be a true positive; we don't know much about this business or why they were declined, but for instance the mention of "get out of debt" in this context sounds shady, and "sounds shady" is not an unreasonable threshold for denying an ad. I also think "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" applies no matter who you are. I don't support the idea of legislation that forces giving detailed policy responses, or any responses at all. Google (and others) have formed a business around having policies so automated that half the people involved might not even know what the policy is, just "computer says no" or "computer flagged it and someone somewhere in the review process said no". I don't think that practice should be banned; on the contrary, it should be possible to try the approach of using automation to be able to scale. And that's a potential opportunity for other competitors; one demonstrated path to success in competing with a company like Google is providing better support and real human interaction. If it turns out that a company is succeeding in spite of awful service, it might be because their product is just that good to overcome that deficiency, or it might also be because their monopoly prevents people from competing with them even with a better product. That's worth examining. But I don't think that's an argument that people should be forced to explain why they don't want to do business with someone; I think that's an argument that we should make sure that it's possible to compete fairly and offer better service to people who want better service.
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Hi! Author's here. > On the other hand, this post talks about having a similar response from Microsoft, and those companies didn't collude As I wrote, I got the ban from Microsoft minutes after Google even before I created an ad or told them what site I planned to advertise. So my guess is that they do exchange data about potential fraudsters. > applies no matter who you are In this case we're talking about a monopoly that is the internet's gatekeeper. If they decide they can refuse their service to us, we die, no guesses. Is that the right way?
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  > I also think "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" applies no matter who you are. It should never apply to monopolies. Governments should always go to all extent into making sure a market is competitive, or make sure things like that do not happen. The preference should obviously be the first one.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    I agree; my argument is that that means we should consider if there's a monopoly issue. We shouldn't write new universal rules to address behaviors that only work if you're a monopoly; we should determine if there's abuse of a monopoly going on, and if so, treat the monopoly as the problem to fix. Doing otherwise risks saying "well, the monopoly is OK, as long as you fix this specific thing", and even entrenching those monopolies further. (For instance, even if you believe that it's acceptable to mandate explaining every refusal to do business with someone, taking the time to explain policies to everyone is something that may in some cases be easier for a large company but prohibitively hard for a smaller one.) If you're abusing a monopoly in a way that prevents other people from coming in and doing better than you, that's the issue, not the specific manifestation of how you're abusing it.

metalliqaz 5y ago

I find the writing style of this article very difficult to read. What we are seeing here is just one result of the Internet being dominated by a small handful of companies. Ad networks, social media, app stores, search ranks... it all stems from the same root cause.

turnerc 5y ago

> None of my friends could tell me the specific reasons why I was banned. It’s mostly because they do not understand their own rules It's because policies are in place to prevent them from doing so, you won't get special treatment or they will be out of a job. Without seeing the Ad data it's hard to say but Financial products have a lot of policy in place and it's not enough to be ready to provide certification, in some instances you must do this beforehand.

trentnix 5y ago
Who watches the Watchmen?
- xnyan 5y ago
  In the case of a company offering a paid service? Nobody. Why should the government force you to publish ads you don't want to host on your own private servers?
  - trentnix 5y ago
    Who said anything about forcing them to run any ads? While the policies that prevent even insiders from finding out why some ad or another was banned to avoid special treatment, they also have the side-effect of being opaque to conceal arbitrary, malicious, or insidious motivations. After all, I'd assume if there are good, clear, generally agreed-to reasons why some ad (or even some account) should not have access to Google services, transparency would justify as much. But without transparency, it's inevitable that there will be abuse. Odds are, there already has been. And Google benefits keeping that behind the curtain.

treeman79 5y ago

My first quick impression of the Ad. Oh it’s for laundering money. I had to reread it a few times to realize that’s not what is meant.

trentnix 5y ago

> There’s no bad intent here — nobody targets me personally, who even cares about me. It’s a constant error in the processes that came, probably, from a good place — but it’s no better for me. You got crushed all the same. The fact that it wasn't malicious just makes sure nobody will suffer any consequences for it. Except you, of course. And even if it was malicious, the veil of "processes" and "policy" will be sufficient to smother any investigation.

LatteLazy 5y ago

I actually think it's a real problem not only for advertising but all over the place where tech companies act as middle me like this. Some of my favourite YT creators have been banned for no reason, banned for impersonating themselves etc. I'd like to see a requirement to improve this process. I don't think it's about privacy though. I think Google have to deal with 100,000,000 ad customers. They have to have guidelines for PR reasons and they need to do all of this for fractions of a penny per impression. So they do it badly.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Maybe if their customerbase is too big for them to do the right thing, then maybe its time to break them up.
- throwaways885 5y ago
  Okay, I'll bite. How do you break up a website? Whichever Baby G ends up with Search will create it's own Ads department, and things will be back to the status quo in no time. The best I can imagine is breaking it by country lines, but realistically, the US will never agree to that.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Is Google just a website? It is an entire effing ecosystem, and that ecosystem gives them too much power, and powers their ad network too. My photos are stored in Google Photos. My email is Gmail. My files are in Drive. I use Google Fi for mobile. My map use and my phone location are in Google's servers. Google controls for all intents and purposes Android, and the Play Store. I use Google Docs. I use Duck Duck Go, but also Google Search. I could go on. Google analytics is installed on nearly ever web site. Google controls the premiere ad network, and the most popular web browser in the world. But let's not forget their Chrome OS. All of that is being leveraged, not just its liddle search engine. Break them up. Into many tiny pieces. Dozens even.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  The issue is the margins are too thin. 2 hemi-googles would have the exact same issue. You can't spend 100USD vetting and giving feedback on a 10usds worth of ad. That's true whether you're doing it for 1 customer or 100m. Unless competition means half these sites close and ad prices go way way up... This is the core issue under a lot of big tech complaints. The same basic logic applies to fake news on social media, counterfeit products on amazon, even scam calls on land line networks. I would like to see a lot less of this "moderation". But that means people have to accept there might be more ads for scams or gambling or alcohol. Instead they want more moderation. And that means more expense AND more mistakes and unresponsive mega corps.

jeroenhd 5y ago

Looking at the ad they placed, I'd have considered this ad as a scam. Starting an ad with [safe] tells me that the product is instead unsafe. Safeapps.io isn't exactly a very convincing domain either. The, uh, "design language" the website uses would be the final nail in the coffin. The entire thing just looks like a badly built scam. Every individual decision can maybe be explained as a branding or design choice, but the end product just doesn't look reliable. I don't think Google gives a shit about your blog articles about how Google is bad, every tech company has written one of those at this point. They're also not as much anti-privacy, they're anti-anti-anti-privacy. A privacy focused product is fine, a product that prevents Google from stalking you not so much. It'd definitely be a false positive, but the truth is that if I saw this ad, I'd definitely click the "report" button.

smoldesu 5y ago
I'm 100% behind you on this. Worth noting that while the app does appear to be open-source, there appears to be no way for you to self-host the service at the moment. Regardless of how scammy it actually is, funneling every user into a $60/year subscription service is one of the biggest scamming tactics I've seen on the web.
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Is it a scam to charge a price for a product? We're freemium. You're not forced to get a subscription right away. You can even use the product without it at all. > there appears to be no way for you to self-host the service at the moment We will provide such an option if there will be any demand. For now it would just waste a lot of our time without any real output. Still, you can do this if you want.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Consider this the beginning of the demand, then: I'm not going to use this service unless I can self-host it.
    - 5y ago

randy408 5y ago

This reminds me of Google hiding ProtonMail from their search results: https://protonmail.com/blog/search-risk-google/ https://protonmail.com/blog/search-risk-google/

andrewnicolalde 5y ago

This is an aside but check out their security page: https://safeapps.io/content/security https://safeapps.io/content/security That’s what I’d like to see from any security page!

dkzlv 5y ago
Thanks! Most of our competitors say they have "strong encryption", but when you read the page it actually means they have SSL. Or that they use SHA256 for hashing the passwords. That is… disappointing.

TameAntelope 5y ago

I think a reasonable law we could pass in the US is that a company of a certain size or larger has to have some way of speaking to a human being about conducting business with that company. I also think companies should be able to determine that working with another company is too risky, such as what happened here. Do we really think people are entitled to use Google or Microsoft services? If so, shouldn't those services just be nationalized?

lutorm 5y ago
It's probably more reasonable to invoke antitrust if companies have such a dominant position that getting banned from one dooms your business.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  I'm not convinced that fits our current antitrust laws, or even how you would legislate that.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Antitrust laws address many things, but they tend to focus on a firm's, or a group of firms, ability to either control prices or exclude competition. I'd argue that this incident could be seen as a group of firms preventing another firm from competing.
fighterpilot 5y ago
"If so, shouldn't those services just be nationalized?" This definitely doesn't (and shouldn't) follow from an entity receiving a common carrier-type designation.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  My understanding was that Section 230 is just a legal shortcut to shorten how long a case takes to arrive at the, "Oh, this is their First Amendment right as a private company." conclusion. Were Section 230 to be revoked, my understanding is that no change would actually occur, other than cases related to it taking longer.

ademup 5y ago

I wonder if it has something to do with the brackets. [safe] looks wrong to me (like a placeholder, or a word that was auto-replaced by a spyware detector). Because yeah, nothing seems to be amiss in the ad. Sorry to see you so poorly treated by the tech giants.

dkzlv 5y ago
Hi! Author's here. Hell, it's AN INNOVATION I came up with — or at least so I thought I thought most people would be able to see this name instantly BECAUSE of the brackets, lol. Thanks for your sympathy, I appreciate it.

api 5y ago

I will pay for a higher quality search engine that respects privacy and gives me greater control over the search process with advanced search tools. I don't think I am alone.

heavyset_go 5y ago

If you're in the US, contact your state's Attorney General, and the US AG, offices. It looks like they're gearing up for antitrust action, and this is a good example of how large companies' anticompetitive behavior is stifling innovation and destroying small businesses.

tyingq 5y ago

Not that you should have to, but words like "Home Budget and Finance Tracking" would make it more clear what it is. Lead with that generic terminology. Then sprinkle in the "encryption" stuff. Leading with "Encryption" and "Finance" is probably what caused the ban. It got put in the bucket of "shady crypto currency stuff" or "internet money laundering". Though, yes, it's a shame the system doesn't first issue a warning, and let you reply with a message to a real human with context before a ban happens.

dkzlv 5y ago
Hi! Author's here. We submitted multiple appeals, but they were all declines — presumably, by real humans. I appreciate your feedback on the copy though. I guess, no harm in trying.

bdcravens 5y ago

I personally think the way the ad was written it seems to suggest anonymous transactions (not the case of course), but I also would look at this statement: "we do not impersonate other brands" The domain is safeapps.io. Not only does this name seem very similar to other applications, some of which are on the Google Play (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hopehealing.safeapp&hl=en_US&gl=US https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hopehealin...), a service provider (https://safemoney.com/ https://safemoney.com/) and even a US military domain (https://safe.apps.mil/ https://safe.apps.mil/). Additionally, on the page the word "safe" doesn't even show up, suggesting the domain name is a squat. I don't believe that it's a squat, but the author is jumping to some big conclusions without looking at some potential causes.

grayhatter 5y ago
You're right, of course... but it would be nice if they didn't have to make assumptions, or jump to these conclusions though wouldn't it?
armoredkitten 5y ago
Bad design, but if you hold your mouse over the "[] money" logo at the top, the word "safe" appears. I don't really understand why someone would choose to create a design that actively hides their own branding...but the word is there.
- bdcravens 5y ago
  Yeah, I didn't see that. I can't imagine what that does for accessibility.

ThePhysicist 5y ago

To be honest, after reading the privacy policy of the service (https://safeapps.io/content/privacy https://safeapps.io/content/privacy) I would not trust them with my financial data. No properly registered company is named and the policy says things like The personal information we collect is stored and/or processed in United States, Netherlands, and Russian Federation, or where we or our partners, affiliates, and third-party providers maintain facilities. How is that privacy-first or even legal? That clause alone is in direct violation of GDPR and CCPA. So I'm not surprised that this got banned.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
How does this violate GDPR?
- ThePhysicist 5y ago
  You can't store EU resident's data in the Russian Federation as the laws there do not provide an adequate level of data protection. Likewise you can't store it in the US in principle, although the situation is more complicated there legally. The CCPA has similar requirements regarding data residency for data belonging to US citizens as far as I know (not an expert on that though). Also, the website does not name a data protection representative in the EU. In fact, I couldn't find any information about the country that the company is based in (I assume Russia), or if there even is a registered company to begin with, which is another no-go. If you want to operate a privacy-first service you should at least make sure the basic formalities are met, and that includes naming who exactly is processing your data for which purposes.
freeone3000 5y ago
A reasonable assumption would be that EU data is processed in the Netherlands, Russian data is processed in the Russian Federation, and that Rest-of-World data is processed in the US. This complies with all of the listed regulations, but it would be nice to have this explicitly broken down.
dkzlv 5y ago
Author's here. It is a standard privacy policy generated by getterms.io. We have no data on you. You can read about our security model here (https://safeapps.io/content/security https://safeapps.io/content/security) and walk through our source code here (https://github.com/safeapps-io https://github.com/safeapps-io). TL;DR: every bit of data you create within the product is encrypted in the browser. The server only sees a blob of encrypted bits, that's all. You can sign up without an email. But if you do, we use Sparkpost for sending emails, which is a EU-based ISP. We do not have any third-party scripts or cookies across all the site at all. No Google Analytics, no Facebook Pixel, no Intercom support chat. We use German hosting and I'm personally from Russia. So no, we do not violate GDPR (but we do violate Russian laws because we do not have any servers in Russia). And we do take privacy seriously.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Google gets lots is shit for having opaque customer support, the problem is I have never seen any suggestions that wouldn't actually create worse problems. No offense to the poster, but everything about this service, the ad, the copy, etc. make me think "major scam". If you are offering a legitimate service, it looks like you're trying as hard as possible to be confused as a scam. So, from Google's perspective, when they see this, they respond with some generic "this looks like a scam" response, but obviously if they gave enough detail on every little thing to fix it would make scammers' lives much easier. So while I've seen other cases where accounts have been frozen, etc. with little recourse, and I have a ton of sympathy, in this case I'm ok with Google making it hard to sign up if something looks this much like a scam.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
I'm really confused by your whole argument. Is it a scam? If it is not a scam, why does it matter that their ad looks like a scam? Should companies be banned for poor ad design? edit: It would nice if the downvoters could explain their thoughts.
- crazygringo 5y ago
  I'll explain. Some scams are actually more effective when they appear like scams, see [1] for the classic example of why Nigerian Prince e-mail scams have intentional bad grammar etc. Any business that is sophisticated enough to build a genuine product is also usually sophisticated enough to realize that "the message is the medium", that a professional non-scammy appearance is required for most customers to even consider trusting it, and so invest in professional graphic design. This goes doubly or triply so for anything finance-related or that takes your finance credentials -- that requires huge trust. So on those two principles, when something looks like a scam, it much more likely is -- because for certain categories of scams, scammers want it to look that way, and non-scammers don't. "Scammy apperance" is a genuinely meaningful signal in practice. But if you don't believe that, then there's this bridge I'm selling... ;) [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nigerian-scam-emails-are-obvious-2014-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nigerian-scam-emails-are...

jonnycomputer 5y ago

For me, all of this just screams: they are too big, break them up. - can't do business because one business says no? ==> too big, break them up. - too big to give small businesses the time of day, or straight answers? ==> too big, break them up.

dkzlv 5y ago
Google has 93% of searches in Europe and 88% in the US. If such a company refuses their services to somebody who is compliant with every single of their publicly shared rule, it's an abuse of their power. And an anti-trust issue. But I didn't offer to break them up. The real solution to this problem, I think, would be to create a transparent process for moderation. That is what the article is about.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Sure. I'm just expressing my own opinion, which is, break them up! Into 5-10 baby googles, 5-10 baby amazons, 5-10 baby facebooks. Unfortunately, regulators get captured, and regulations often present barriers to entry. The process by which you might get a reprieve or compensation for your loss of business might still cost you your business, in legal fees, or in opportunity costs. Monopolies and oligopolies are the problem, and the solution is to break them up.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

KingMachiavelli 5y ago

Instead of "finance tracker" maybe just call it "accounting software"? Since that's what it is? The "[safe]" is confusing since it make's me think there is an not-safe version but this link is to the "safe" version. Like how HN put's [pdf] in URLs that link to PDFs.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

_Nat_ 5y ago

You might want to get some feedback on ads before posting them. Some of the advice you got seems reasonable. Personally, if I had to make an ad for a similar product, I might try to get a good picture of the software graphing something, with a concise, title-like summary of what it does. Miscellaneous opinions: 1. The ad started with "[safe] money". I imagine most people would instantly disregard it as a scam and not bother reading further. 2. The ad references crypto. While crypto can be awesome, it's also great for scammers and the like. So if your ad is already at-risk for looking scam-y, stressing an association with a safe-haven for scammers might not do any favors. 3. The ad has a sentence start with "Tracking", then a line-break. People who want privacy generally don't want to be tracked, so that might be a poor happenstance. 4. It's not immediately clear how the app is end-to-end encrypted. That claim usually makes more sense if it's like a messaging-service, where end-to-end crypto implies security against the server. But if clients are just contacting the server, then "end-to-end" would seem misleading. 5. The ad said "100% open source". Unlike most of the stuff in it, that part does inspire more confidence. So much so that, personally, I might lead with it before even saying what the product is, or else immediately afterward.

tlogan 5y ago
And I would also suggest to change website name. safeapps.io is similar to safe.apps.mil. Also safeapps.io does not convey what the app is actually doing. Maybe Open-source-money-manager.com, yet-another-money-manager.com,... Because this app is a money manager - correct?
dkzlv 5y ago
Hi! I'm the author. 1. it's hard to judge about that right away. It would be cool to see the ads data beforehand. If I saw the ad performs poorly I would change it obviously. "[safe] money" is our brand, so it would be strange not to start with it. 2. the ad does not reference crypto. We had a mention of it on the landing page, that is all. We allow people to pay with crypto along with banking cards — so it's kind of your decision to go one way or another. 4. its more or less the same. You can be e2ee if you, say, have an encrypted version of Google Drive. e2ee in this case means that even though there's a server (which we also have) it cannot read the data in any way. We're mostly the same. 5. ok, we'll think about it, thanks! Thanks for your detailed feedback.

oehpr 5y ago

This may seem tangential, but reply all did a story about scummy locksmiths falsely reporting locations to google. https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2ho87 https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2ho87 This is relevant because they interview a moderator and they talk about how insufferable these companies are, and how they have a private set of guidelines that they can't reveal that these scam locksmiths are in an never ending battle to subvert. Under this lens, and looking at the ad [safe] provided, I have to agree with other peoples take, it's likely [safe] tripped over a bunch of private moderation rules about crypto and ponzi schemes, and nothing to do with privacy.

PebblesRox 5y ago
That wedding ring story at the end of the podcast is amazing!

paxys 5y ago

The article alleges multiple times that they were banned because they are a privacy-first service, but that is definitely incorrect. Many similar companies run ads on Google all the time – VPN providers, alternative browsers, browser extensions, secure email, encrypted messaging. I have seen ads mentioning the exact terms (crypto, blockchain, encryption) they the author alleges are banned. The simpler explanation is that their site got caught by some spam/scam filter.

dkzlv 5y ago
Hi, I'm the author. That was my first thought, but the problem is that the site was moderated by actual human beings and all the appeals were still denied. > Many similar companies run ads on Google all the time Like I said in the end of the article, it's a thing that is allowed for established companies, because I too run into such ads all the time. I made this conclusion based on the information provided by my friends working in Google and Microsoft. Again, there's no way I can reliably say the _real_ reason because all Google said was "*Unacceptable Business Practice*" linking to this page. (https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6020955?hl=en#368 https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6020955?hl=en#36...)

cortesoft 5y ago

I won’t comment about the other parts of the post, but I will say that I hate using examples of things that make it through the filter to complain about things that get blocked by a filter. All filters are going to have false positives and false negatives. The fact that they missed some things that they likely meant to block doesn’t really say anything about the stuff they block that they meant to let through.

ydlr 5y ago

I feel bad for the author, but I am perfectly fine with a few false positives if it means more scams are blocked. I'd even be okay if the number of false positives is higher than the actual scams blocked if it meant very very few scams make it through the filters. I think Google should be liable for scams on its network. They should either: 1. Figure out a way to better automate scam filtering, 2. Hire a massive number of people to review each ad, or 3. Downsize their business until they can manage it responsibly. Google is not entitled to their scale. If they cannot responsibly run a business at its current size, they should be forced to downsize until they can.

_def 5y ago

I just want to say that I really want a product like this. About the moderation: it's just like the nightmare with YouTube and Content ID. False positives are better than false negatives when it's about scams and such. But, my God, tech giants just give people a way to sort this stuff out!

deregulateMed 5y ago

Where would I see a Microsoft ad? My corporate laptop doesn't have candy crush on it.

dkzlv 5y ago
Among other sites Microsoft serves ads on DuckDuckGo, so if you're a privacy enthusiast, you'll probably see the ad :)

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago

Probably Google AI has decided that "encryption" and "finance" in the same sentence means "bitcoin" and banned you automatically.

fabiandesimone 5y ago

If you think Google and Microsoft is opaque you haven't spend much time with Facebook Ads. It's a complete SS.