5 ms·

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 fo

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...
- wruza 5y ago
  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 is so middle-age stereotypical that I’m not even sure if it’s worth opposing. The first thing you see in every financial app is how much unprofessional it really is with regards to UI, and it only gets worse with time. It doesn’t take a ph.d. to understand that this “trust theater” is just that, and it’s beyond me how people trust someone with their money based on some CSS (which is presumably fubar in the source view).
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  So then why doesn't Google just say look less like a scam? Why don't they give their reasoning? Why don't they just provide that reasoning? Regardless, I still find your position kind of crazy. Basically you're saying (honestly totally subjectively without any real rational basis) that this _looks_ like a scam (opinion), therefore it's more likely to be a scam and therefore it should be banned. So if the user responds and demonstrates that it _isn't_ a scam, then you why the hell not allow it to work again? Personally I think Google should be legally required to provide this reasoning and to reinstate it if they are initially incorrect in their conclusion that it's a scam. I'm kind of amazed that that would even be required since it's basic human decency that if Google is incorrect, they fix their mistake. But well money is more attractive than morals and decency.
JoshTriplett 5y ago
Yes, companies should be banned for scammy-looking ad design. It's not the job of an ad service to go "well, you look really scammy, but digging deeper it turns out you might be OK, so go ahead". Scammy ads make advertising worse for everyone, even if they just look scammy. That's leaving aside that "looks scammy" is a reasonable signal for "is scammy". I'm in the "all ads are bad" camp, but I can also observe that scammy ads contribute to more widespread perceptions of ads being bad, even among people who might otherwise intentionally click on some ads.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  I entirely disagree. Google _should_ be required to provide its reasoning. Google _should_ provide redress. And frankly I don't even think the ad looks all that scammy. At least nothing even remotely specially compared to all other ads I see by Google. Regardless, we don't even know that this is the reason why Google banned it because they refused to say why they did. They should be required to do so.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  No. We cannot allow an oligopoly that no one can avoid to issue life bans for small mistakes without any recourse or due process. Punishment has to fit the crime. If we allow corporations that are more powerful than nation states and can crush a person's chances in life then conflict resolution needs to be bit more sophisticated than a cost optimisation algorithm.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    > We cannot allow an oligopoly that no one can avoid If this is true (which is very much in question), that's the issue. If it's true that nobody else can enter that market, then that's the problem we should address. A monopoly or oligopoly does not suddenly become OK because we put some rules in place for how it should operate, and those rules may in fact entrench the established companies because they can afford the overhead.
    - 5y ago

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...

wruza 5y ago
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 is so middle-age stereotypical that I’m not even sure if it’s worth opposing. The first thing you see in every financial app is how much unprofessional it really is with regards to UI, and it only gets worse with time. It doesn’t take a ph.d. to understand that this “trust theater” is just that, and it’s beyond me how people trust someone with their money based on some CSS (which is presumably fubar in the source view).
CogitoCogito 5y ago
So then why doesn't Google just say look less like a scam? Why don't they give their reasoning? Why don't they just provide that reasoning? Regardless, I still find your position kind of crazy. Basically you're saying (honestly totally subjectively without any real rational basis) that this _looks_ like a scam (opinion), therefore it's more likely to be a scam and therefore it should be banned. So if the user responds and demonstrates that it _isn't_ a scam, then you why the hell not allow it to work again? Personally I think Google should be legally required to provide this reasoning and to reinstate it if they are initially incorrect in their conclusion that it's a scam. I'm kind of amazed that that would even be required since it's basic human decency that if Google is incorrect, they fix their mistake. But well money is more attractive than morals and decency.

JoshTriplett 5y ago

Yes, companies should be banned for scammy-looking ad design. It's not the job of an ad service to go "well, you look really scammy, but digging deeper it turns out you might be OK, so go ahead". Scammy ads make advertising worse for everyone, even if they just look scammy. That's leaving aside that "looks scammy" is a reasonable signal for "is scammy". I'm in the "all ads are bad" camp, but I can also observe that scammy ads contribute to more widespread perceptions of ads being bad, even among people who might otherwise intentionally click on some ads.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
I entirely disagree. Google _should_ be required to provide its reasoning. Google _should_ provide redress. And frankly I don't even think the ad looks all that scammy. At least nothing even remotely specially compared to all other ads I see by Google. Regardless, we don't even know that this is the reason why Google banned it because they refused to say why they did. They should be required to do so.
fauigerzigerk 5y ago
No. We cannot allow an oligopoly that no one can avoid to issue life bans for small mistakes without any recourse or due process. Punishment has to fit the crime. If we allow corporations that are more powerful than nation states and can crush a person's chances in life then conflict resolution needs to be bit more sophisticated than a cost optimisation algorithm.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  > We cannot allow an oligopoly that no one can avoid If this is true (which is very much in question), that's the issue. If it's true that nobody else can enter that market, then that's the problem we should address. A monopoly or oligopoly does not suddenly become OK because we put some rules in place for how it should operate, and those rules may in fact entrench the established companies because they can afford the overhead.
  - 5y ago