4 ms·
Finally! I've been wondering how Facebook and Google can get away with running ads that are clearly malicious in nature like https://imgur.com/a/Lk85lST https:
by bcrl 5y ago
Finally! I've been wondering how Facebook and Google can get away with running ads that are clearly malicious in nature like https://imgur.com/a/Lk85lST https://imgur.com/a/Lk85lST (which my elderly father got a while back). Organizations like the Ads Standards Council exist for a reason, and there's no excuse for the "new" digital media not to follow the obligations for advertising as every other form of media is.
- ipaddr 5y agoThat ad seems fair. The problem is apple the company is using a common word. That last thing you want is ads to need to be approved by a Standards Council with appointees controlling advertising.
- mdoms 5y agoAre you out of your mind? This is not an accidental collision on common keywords. This is a malicious company squatting ads on "apple support".
- ipaddr 5y agoApple is a common word. Apple support could be a farm selling apples. If it was related to Apple the company. It could be a third-party selling ad repair services and support or educational material. You can't ban ads because someone may not notice they are clicking an ad vs a normal search result. If you care you make the difference clearer. Should there be a google-lite page that would be a filtered starting point for people like this?
- SkyPuncher 5y agoSo, the company that's advertising, do they sell farm apples or do they do tech that somewhat impersonates Apple, one of the largest companies in the world.
- ipaddr 5y agoI can't click on a link in an image so I wouldn't know If malware installed I would expect google to detect and disable that ad. She clicked an ad. Removing ads from search results should be the goal. She made a mistake. Google blended ads with results. She did not realize she was clicking an ad.
- zdragnar 5y agoMy mom fell for a similar ad on Google for her computer. They got her to install a remote access tool but she managed to wise up before they got anything sensitive (aside from some payment, iirc). I know it is a rats nest of jurisdictions and technological boundaries to track down people who are, I will admit, relatively small time scammers. The organizations capable of doing so often have much bigger fish to fry. This is why I fully endorse making Google and FB liable. They are in a commercial arrangement with these scammers, and providing them access to clueless elderly folk who maybe should know better, but often don't.
- jacquesm 5y agoSame here in NL plenty of google searches for phone numbers, even of government institutions will turn up numbers owned by scammers. Usually these will connect you through to some tape that pretends you are nth in line to keep you hanging while they ding your account for the maximum rate per minute. The phone companies are in cahoots, they make tons of money of this too.
- cperciva 5y agoIn a similar vein: Most of the adverts I see on Reddit are for very obvious Ponzi schemes. But I guess because they're "social media" and "disruptive" it's ok?
- Mandatum 5y agoDoesn't Google and Facebook have manual reviews of ads places on their platforms? How does something like this get through?
- smilebot 5y agoNot manual at that scale.
- bcrl 5y agoIf the automation can't weed out malicious scams and phishing ads that are obvious to a human, perhaps they're not doing what needs to be done "at scale".
- technion 5y agoI ran these ads on Facebook with no issues. https://ibb.co/Wtn38Hf https://ibb.co/Wtn38Hf (there was no malware)