4 ms·

I'm a Xoogler and one of the Twitter users included in this OP. A few interesting things here; reporting flow is terrible. You have to open the (porn/dangerous

I'm a Xoogler and one of the Twitter users included in this OP. A few interesting things here; reporting flow is terrible. You have to open the (porn/dangerous) on Google Drive in mobile, then on desktop open it in recent, then go to Help > Report Abuse/Copyright example link (NSFW!!) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ftlYcB4sY7FLj_1WHkoS7Jd2zPAaMDLnv06F3N7JT5U/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ftlYcB4sY7FLj_1WHkoS7Jd2... - links to rju2.all444link.com (many of these are using all444link.com) - last edit (shown on mobile only) was from ratchaneekorn_spk@spk.ac.th - abuse report link is at https://docs.google.com/u/0/abuse?id=1ftlYcB4sY7FLj_1WHkoS7Jd2zPAaMDLnv06F3N7JT5U https://docs.google.com/u/0/abuse?id=1ftlYcB4sY7FLj_1WHkoS7J... with clear link structure Every single one of these spam pages was A) advertising porn, B) using all444link.com, and C) was from a user at a Thai educational domain name (different hosts, though).

paulpauper 5y ago
It's not a high priory for Google stopping spam, same for all major tech companies. Their framing of this is that they are not the internet's babysitters. An assumption is users bear some responsibility for not being scammed or it's not profitable for them to invest lots of resources into stopping spam. ISPs are somewhat different in that customers are paying and ISPs bear a greater cost, so they tend to take spam more aggressively.
- gifnamething 5y ago
  It's still in google's best interest that someone can use their phones without being spammed by porn ads or blocking Drive notifications.
- blooalien 5y ago
  They're maybe not the internet's "babysitters", but they are the "babysitters" of their own network infrastructure and services, and these spammer scum do abuse that infrastructure and waste/steal bandwidth and other resource that don't belong to them. You'd think Google would want to put a stop to that when it's gotten to a point where it's happening "at scale" and wasting large enough amounts of resource that it starts to equate to real-world dollars being lost/wasted. Sure, users bear some responsibility for not being scammed, but that doesn't mean that Google has to tolerate it happening through their services and infrastructure, especially not when their own end user license agreements for those services actively prohibit such usage.
  - paulpauper 5y ago
    That is the problem. google does not deem this spam that is on their platform to be enough of a cost to justify trying doing more to stop it. It's a basic cost-benefit analysis.
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  >They are not the internet's babysitters This kind of attitude is why we're all enduring nonstop spam calls.
  - jlmorton 5y ago
    Contra the point of this thread, Google actually prevents me from getting basically any spam calls. With the combination of Google Fi and Pixel, I receive very few spam calls. Almost all of them are automatically screened, the phone never rings, and I'm left with a "spam notification," with a transcript of the call asking me to extend my warranty. Similarly, essentially all spam text messages are identified as spam, and generate only a silent notification. For the few spam calls that slip through, it's one click to screen the call with Google Assistant.
- tedivm 5y ago
  Are you confusing google drive spam with email spam? In this case Google is the ISP- as the article said, the Google Drive App is sending notifications to people for this spam. People's local ISPs have literally nothing to do with this at all.
  - paulpauper 5y ago
    Earthlink takes spam way more seriously than google because EarthLink has paying customers. Most people who use google products do not pay. Google is not going to invest millions of stopping spam if there is no financial reason to do so. That is the cold reality of cost-benefit analysis. There would have to be some legislation or legal precedent in which google is forced to do something.
    - tedivm 5y ago
      Google has paying customers for its office suite. They charge for individuals storage beyond the free tier, and their business users pay a per user fee.
      - lupire 5y ago
        And those customers have the right to send porn spam.
    - dtjb 5y ago
      It is a degradation of their service. They absolutely should care.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  Okay so bear with me. My local carwash has a legitimate crazy person there who tries to sell his flat-earth pamphlets. The carwash tries to chase him away, not because they're the street's "baby sitter", but because he's bad for business. People could go get a car wash elsewhere. People could store their files elsewhere.
  - paulpauper 5y ago
    Let's assume the carwash has thousands of very expensive customers who generate billions of dollars for it, and many more cheaper customers that generate much less or nothing. And the crazy person is hassling some of the non-paying customers, but it costs google $1000/day to stop him, because he's very persistent. Is it worth google paying $1000/day to protect those non-paying customers or help those expensive customers?
    - phendrenad2 5y ago
      Yeah that's my point, being the babysitter of your platform is sometimes cost-effective, and sometimes not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lupire 5y ago
> Thai educational domain name Aka a (hacked?) paying customer who it is more trustworthy than you, a mere innocent user.
sebastien_ar 5y ago
I'm having the same issue... Google is not helping.. ¿any solution to this?

paulpauper 5y ago

It's not a high priory for Google stopping spam, same for all major tech companies. Their framing of this is that they are not the internet's babysitters. An assumption is users bear some responsibility for not being scammed or it's not profitable for them to invest lots of resources into stopping spam. ISPs are somewhat different in that customers are paying and ISPs bear a greater cost, so they tend to take spam more aggressively.

gifnamething 5y ago
It's still in google's best interest that someone can use their phones without being spammed by porn ads or blocking Drive notifications.
blooalien 5y ago
They're maybe not the internet's "babysitters", but they are the "babysitters" of their own network infrastructure and services, and these spammer scum do abuse that infrastructure and waste/steal bandwidth and other resource that don't belong to them. You'd think Google would want to put a stop to that when it's gotten to a point where it's happening "at scale" and wasting large enough amounts of resource that it starts to equate to real-world dollars being lost/wasted. Sure, users bear some responsibility for not being scammed, but that doesn't mean that Google has to tolerate it happening through their services and infrastructure, especially not when their own end user license agreements for those services actively prohibit such usage.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  That is the problem. google does not deem this spam that is on their platform to be enough of a cost to justify trying doing more to stop it. It's a basic cost-benefit analysis.
monkeybutton 5y ago
>They are not the internet's babysitters This kind of attitude is why we're all enduring nonstop spam calls.
- jlmorton 5y ago
  Contra the point of this thread, Google actually prevents me from getting basically any spam calls. With the combination of Google Fi and Pixel, I receive very few spam calls. Almost all of them are automatically screened, the phone never rings, and I'm left with a "spam notification," with a transcript of the call asking me to extend my warranty. Similarly, essentially all spam text messages are identified as spam, and generate only a silent notification. For the few spam calls that slip through, it's one click to screen the call with Google Assistant.
tedivm 5y ago
Are you confusing google drive spam with email spam? In this case Google is the ISP- as the article said, the Google Drive App is sending notifications to people for this spam. People's local ISPs have literally nothing to do with this at all.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  Earthlink takes spam way more seriously than google because EarthLink has paying customers. Most people who use google products do not pay. Google is not going to invest millions of stopping spam if there is no financial reason to do so. That is the cold reality of cost-benefit analysis. There would have to be some legislation or legal precedent in which google is forced to do something.
  - tedivm 5y ago
    Google has paying customers for its office suite. They charge for individuals storage beyond the free tier, and their business users pay a per user fee.
    - lupire 5y ago
      And those customers have the right to send porn spam.
  - dtjb 5y ago
    It is a degradation of their service. They absolutely should care.
phendrenad2 5y ago
Okay so bear with me. My local carwash has a legitimate crazy person there who tries to sell his flat-earth pamphlets. The carwash tries to chase him away, not because they're the street's "baby sitter", but because he's bad for business. People could go get a car wash elsewhere. People could store their files elsewhere.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  Let's assume the carwash has thousands of very expensive customers who generate billions of dollars for it, and many more cheaper customers that generate much less or nothing. And the crazy person is hassling some of the non-paying customers, but it costs google $1000/day to stop him, because he's very persistent. Is it worth google paying $1000/day to protect those non-paying customers or help those expensive customers?
  - phendrenad2 5y ago
    Yeah that's my point, being the babysitter of your platform is sometimes cost-effective, and sometimes not.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lupire 5y ago

> Thai educational domain name Aka a (hacked?) paying customer who it is more trustworthy than you, a mere innocent user.

sebastien_ar 5y ago

I'm having the same issue... Google is not helping.. ¿any solution to this?