4 ms·
Shitty ad code barfing errors onto the console is typical, unfortunately. The JS is not written by Google, it's written by the individual advertiser, with very
by streptomycin 5y ago
Shitty ad code barfing errors onto the console is typical, unfortunately. The JS is not written by Google, it's written by the individual advertiser, with very limited oversight.
- kadoban 5y ago> "with very limited oversight" I think I found the problem.
- streptomycin 5y agoIt's a problem, but it's not "the" problem. The problem is that letting advertisers write their own JS means advertisers are willing to pay more for the ad. If Google banned that practice, or put in a lot of oversight, people would pay less for ads through Google. But some other ad networks would still allow the bad practices, and thus be able to pay higher rates. So sites would just move more ads to those other networks. That doesn't absolve Google of responsibility, but it does mean that we can't actually solve the problem just by being mad at Google.
- mattgreenrocks 5y agoI don’t think expecting Google to take responsibility for the ads they serve is unreasonable. It is profoundly strange that we extol the virtues of succeeding in society and yet also act like said success doesn’t come with heavy responsibility.
- luckylion 5y agoThe value in adsense is absolutely not in the ability to run unvetted javascript served from a google-hosted domain. The value is in the tracking and retargeting. Serving javascript from a well-connected CDN isn't something that sets anyone apart, you can just sign up with cloudflare and have that working in a few minutes.
- jasonjayr 5y agoThose other networks would start getting blocked hard with adblock/DNS block/public shaming of sites using them.
- streptomycin 5y agoAd blockers already block all ad networks. And the status quo is that all ad networks have ads with shitty JS, and public shaming doesn't seem to have done much about it.
- Rygian 5y agoIt is served by Google. Google has an enormous amount of resources to vet the code that Google serves. They are skirting their obligation of due diligence.
- streptomycin 5y agoIt's hard to change the status quo when people's livelihoods are at stake. It's not just about Google, it's about all the sites running Google ads, and all the companies advertising through Google. If Google makes things sufficiently less profitable for all those parties, they'll just move elsewhere. Incremental progress is being made, like SafeFrames, but it's never going to be completely solved all at once.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoOh no, how will the poor advertisers survive if someone tries to stop them from shipping malware?
- streptomycin 5y agoThe problem isn't that advertisers should be allowed to ship malware, it's that it's hard to distinguish malware from non-malware. Also the adjacent problem of "not quite malware, but shitty code that spams error logs and runs way slower than it should".
- hetspookjee 5y agoWhy should ads be so free to run arbitrary code? It seems to me that in the end Google should be held responsible for anything they serve to others. If they'd be fined for this lack of oversight, perhaps they'd block javascript as a whole until they do have proper oversight in place?
- streptomycin 5y agoBecause advertisers pay more for it, and publishers like making money. If Google didn't offer it, someone else would, and they might do even worse than Google at sandboxing the code and trying to filter out abusive ads. Not saying it's a great situation, just explaining why there's not an easy solution.
- jasonjayr 5y agoGoogle (+ apple) Control their mobile platforms and take responsibility for apps served through their respective stores. Why can't they do the same with their ad networks? Transpile any JS code served from their network into a safe execution environment/api that only permits the resources allowed safely?
- streptomycin 5y agoThe SafeFrame stuff is an attempt to move in that direction, but it is far from perfect. Hopefully that will continue to improve.