5 ms·

No, the person creating the fake ad is guilty of fraud. Google is guilty of not verifying it enough. Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware app

by izacus 4y ago

No, the person creating the fake ad is guilty of fraud. Google is guilty of not verifying it enough. Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is. Same as Walmart isn't guilty of poisoning people when they stock a product that's spoiled in production, but merely failing to verify proper credentials set up by regulators. I don't know why so many people here and elsewere refuse to hold people creating predatory/fradulent companies accountable , but instead demand that megacorporations control access to your products instead. Which they repeatedly fail and and exploit to enrich themselves at your expense.

dTal 4y ago
I don't follow - you say "Google is guilty of not verifying it enough", then you turn around and say it's bad that people "demand that megacorporations control access to your products". Which is it?
- izacus 4y ago
  Both. It can be both. Compare to food: it's like demanding that Walmart screen all the food itself to protect you and then you'd screech at Walmart and only Walmart for not making sure Keloggs cereal is healthy while letting the manufacturer off the hook with zero (I repeat, zero, none, null, NADA) consequences for fraud and damage they caused. The way media, HNers and other people behave is creating a situation that's terrible to the extreme. Now, do a thinking experiment: how did we ensure product quality in food/electronics/other parts that DID NOT hang on the fact that Walmart has 100% monopoly on all sales of those products and completely locks out you ability to go to any other store? How did we build a system that holds manufacturer of fradulent good accountable, not the megacorporation doing the distribution?
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Except Walmart has to follow certain standards to ensure the products it sells are legitimate. If they'd literally just accept products from random unmarked vans and put them up for sale, they'd be very much on the line if those products end up being unsafe. Likewise you can't just sell stolen goods even if you don't know they're stolen. They'll be confiscated at best and you'll be charged for fencing stolen goods at worst.
    - izacus 4y ago
      Exactly. Where are those standards for software and content? Remember that we punish the companies that build products against standards first, not just Walmart for stocking them. We also don't trust exclusively just Walmart to set and enforce food safety standards (because that would be problematic for competition wouldn't it)? We have independent standard bodies. And right know we have NOTHING to beat Google (or Apple or anyone) on the head with because there's no standard or rule they've ignored when they allowed this ad to be published.
    - phkahler 4y ago
      >> Except Walmart has to follow certain standards to ensure the products it sells are legitimate. And so Walmart makes a solid effort to ensure they know who they are buying product from.
      - hnbad 4y ago
        That's my point. Google can just take money from any random entity and let them run fraudulent ads and the worst that will happen is they have to shut down the ads and get to pocket the unspent money.
  - temp2022account 4y ago
    I love these analogies to retail markets, but one major difference keeps digital goods from behaving the same way: spoiled food is easy to identify by customers and changes their behavior, incentivizing the quality controls we have today. Spoiled advertisements/news programs/blog spam are not easy to identify by _todays_ customers, and thus do not incentivize quality controls. I think the solution to todays attention problem is to meet the problem on the same battlefield; attention! If anyone has a clever idea to marry people w/o situational awareness to a flywheel that creates situational awareness lmk.
Tozen 4y ago
> Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is. People certainly can point the finger, for them to share some accountability, because Apple/Google are debatably suppressing competition. If people must use their store or search engine, then become victims of fraud, they are going to question how such got through their filtering systems and why can't they have other alternatives. It's one thing, if on an open system, the user chose a shady app on some odd corner of the web and it's another if the app is put in front of their face.
urbandw311er 4y ago
I couldn’t agree with you less. Enabling fraud and turning a blind eye is as bad as the fraud itself, if not worse. There’s a reason we have laws about being an “accessory to…” stuff right?
BLKNSLVR 4y ago
Google is literally getting paid to advertise fraudulent businesses or websites and / or to deliver malware. If they can't sanitise their primary means of profit then... Nothing, because there's no regulation after how many years?
- izacus 4y ago
  Exactly, why isn't the regulation going after those fradulent businesses? Why are actual criminals being unpunished while you wring your hands on how megacorporations aren't playing the police?
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    Aiding and abetting criminal activity is also criminal activity as far as I understand. I also block ads like my life depends on it.

by izacus 4y ago

dTal 4y ago

I don't follow - you say "Google is guilty of not verifying it enough", then you turn around and say it's bad that people "demand that megacorporations control access to your products". Which is it?

izacus 4y ago
Both. It can be both. Compare to food: it's like demanding that Walmart screen all the food itself to protect you and then you'd screech at Walmart and only Walmart for not making sure Keloggs cereal is healthy while letting the manufacturer off the hook with zero (I repeat, zero, none, null, NADA) consequences for fraud and damage they caused. The way media, HNers and other people behave is creating a situation that's terrible to the extreme. Now, do a thinking experiment: how did we ensure product quality in food/electronics/other parts that DID NOT hang on the fact that Walmart has 100% monopoly on all sales of those products and completely locks out you ability to go to any other store? How did we build a system that holds manufacturer of fradulent good accountable, not the megacorporation doing the distribution?
- hnbad 4y ago
  Except Walmart has to follow certain standards to ensure the products it sells are legitimate. If they'd literally just accept products from random unmarked vans and put them up for sale, they'd be very much on the line if those products end up being unsafe. Likewise you can't just sell stolen goods even if you don't know they're stolen. They'll be confiscated at best and you'll be charged for fencing stolen goods at worst.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Exactly. Where are those standards for software and content? Remember that we punish the companies that build products against standards first, not just Walmart for stocking them. We also don't trust exclusively just Walmart to set and enforce food safety standards (because that would be problematic for competition wouldn't it)? We have independent standard bodies. And right know we have NOTHING to beat Google (or Apple or anyone) on the head with because there's no standard or rule they've ignored when they allowed this ad to be published.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    >> Except Walmart has to follow certain standards to ensure the products it sells are legitimate. And so Walmart makes a solid effort to ensure they know who they are buying product from.
    - hnbad 4y ago
      That's my point. Google can just take money from any random entity and let them run fraudulent ads and the worst that will happen is they have to shut down the ads and get to pocket the unspent money.
- temp2022account 4y ago
  I love these analogies to retail markets, but one major difference keeps digital goods from behaving the same way: spoiled food is easy to identify by customers and changes their behavior, incentivizing the quality controls we have today. Spoiled advertisements/news programs/blog spam are not easy to identify by _todays_ customers, and thus do not incentivize quality controls. I think the solution to todays attention problem is to meet the problem on the same battlefield; attention! If anyone has a clever idea to marry people w/o situational awareness to a flywheel that creates situational awareness lmk.

Tozen 4y ago

> Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is. People certainly can point the finger, for them to share some accountability, because Apple/Google are debatably suppressing competition. If people must use their store or search engine, then become victims of fraud, they are going to question how such got through their filtering systems and why can't they have other alternatives. It's one thing, if on an open system, the user chose a shady app on some odd corner of the web and it's another if the app is put in front of their face.

urbandw311er 4y ago

I couldn’t agree with you less. Enabling fraud and turning a blind eye is as bad as the fraud itself, if not worse. There’s a reason we have laws about being an “accessory to…” stuff right?

BLKNSLVR 4y ago

Google is literally getting paid to advertise fraudulent businesses or websites and / or to deliver malware. If they can't sanitise their primary means of profit then... Nothing, because there's no regulation after how many years?

izacus 4y ago
Exactly, why isn't the regulation going after those fradulent businesses? Why are actual criminals being unpunished while you wring your hands on how megacorporations aren't playing the police?
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  Aiding and abetting criminal activity is also criminal activity as far as I understand. I also block ads like my life depends on it.