3 ms·

Well, their business and the business of everyone that advertises online. So it comes back to "Should we all pound sand because of a (statistically) few bad act

Well, their business and the business of everyone that advertises online. So it comes back to "Should we all pound sand because of a (statistically) few bad actors?" Firefox advertises at the top of "download browser." Should we cede their ability to be found to whoever Google thinks should be at the top of that organic result? Because by user numbers alone, it probably won't be Firefox!

JohnFen 4y ago
I think a strong case can be made that if a business cannot operate without causing harm to unconsenting others, it should not be operating. > because of a (statistically) few bad actors? It doesn't actually matter how many or few bad actors there are. What matters is how much harm is being done. I'm not sure what your point is about Firefox, but in general, it doesn't matter if mitigating the harm Google's ad system does adversely affects Firefox or any other advertiser.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Who are the unconsenting others? The people who chose to trust a Google ad? I'm not sure what consent means if it doesn't mean "user clicked on a result after asking Google for results." The backstop here is the user doesn't come back because they got screwed by Google, not that some third-party makes that decision for people. But yes, I suspect if Google can't get on top of this problem they'll lose their leadership position in search.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > I'm not sure what consent means if it doesn't mean "user clicked on a result after asking Google for results." First, I'm talking about ads, not search results. Although Google conflates the two as much as they can get away with, and people often get confused as to which is which. I can't imagine how clicking on an ad can be interpreted as consent to being exposed to malware. In order to be considered "consent", the person has to be fully and accurately informed of what they're being asked to consent to. > The backstop here is the user doesn't come back because they got screwed by Google I truly wish we lived in a world where that could be expected.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      I don't see why we wouldn't expect it. Wouldn't be worth talking about if it wasn't a possibility. Google dethroned search vendors before them and they aren't bulletproof. If they are, might as well pack up DDG and everything else right now. Shut off the servers and decrease the greenhouse gas emissions, right? No, I think the backstop here is that DDG has a wonderful opportunity to be the search engine where you don't have to worry about getting vended malware via an ad above the first organic result.
taneq 4y ago
We’ve all paid to drink from this punch bowl, should we ask for a refund just because a few bad actors pissed in it?

JohnFen 4y ago

I think a strong case can be made that if a business cannot operate without causing harm to unconsenting others, it should not be operating. > because of a (statistically) few bad actors? It doesn't actually matter how many or few bad actors there are. What matters is how much harm is being done. I'm not sure what your point is about Firefox, but in general, it doesn't matter if mitigating the harm Google's ad system does adversely affects Firefox or any other advertiser.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Who are the unconsenting others? The people who chose to trust a Google ad? I'm not sure what consent means if it doesn't mean "user clicked on a result after asking Google for results." The backstop here is the user doesn't come back because they got screwed by Google, not that some third-party makes that decision for people. But yes, I suspect if Google can't get on top of this problem they'll lose their leadership position in search.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > I'm not sure what consent means if it doesn't mean "user clicked on a result after asking Google for results." First, I'm talking about ads, not search results. Although Google conflates the two as much as they can get away with, and people often get confused as to which is which. I can't imagine how clicking on an ad can be interpreted as consent to being exposed to malware. In order to be considered "consent", the person has to be fully and accurately informed of what they're being asked to consent to. > The backstop here is the user doesn't come back because they got screwed by Google I truly wish we lived in a world where that could be expected.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    I don't see why we wouldn't expect it. Wouldn't be worth talking about if it wasn't a possibility. Google dethroned search vendors before them and they aren't bulletproof. If they are, might as well pack up DDG and everything else right now. Shut off the servers and decrease the greenhouse gas emissions, right? No, I think the backstop here is that DDG has a wonderful opportunity to be the search engine where you don't have to worry about getting vended malware via an ad above the first organic result.

taneq 4y ago

We’ve all paid to drink from this punch bowl, should we ask for a refund just because a few bad actors pissed in it?