3 ms·

Why would it lock out most advertisers?

shadowgovt 4y ago
Because Google (like other online advertisers and most online services) doesn't have any tighter KYC restrictions than accepting a valid credit card (which, we assume, has already been KYC'd by a bank). Requiring bank-scale KYC on top of that to also work with the advertisers would cut the 4 million advertisers Google currently serves down to a tiny fraction of that (if for no other reason than they don't have infrastructure to background-vet 4 million customers; they don't currently). Perhaps this is the right approach. It would end the days of being able to set up an advertising account in a few hours. Perhaps that's not needed anymore. (This would, of course, mean people giving even more PII to Google. However one feels about that).
- manigandham 4y ago
  > "doesn't have any tighter KYC restrictions" Yes that's the problem. > "Requiring bank-scale KYC..." Nobody said that. The KYC part is an analogy to the financial industry to use procedures to screen out bad actors. But it doesn't need the same requirements. > " they don't have infrastructure to background-vet 4 million customers" KYC is not difficult. Again, banks and finance companies which are far smaller than Google do this all the time, for all of their customers and anyone involved in transactions. This is 100s of millions of clients. > "Perhaps this is the right approach." This approach is far more nuanced than the binary outcome you're interpreting. There are ad and account approvals already. There are different scales requiring different support and sales already. Having more intensive checks as the spending scales is a very simple and effective strategy that can be applied today. The company doesn't care about the number of customers, it cares about the revenue against potential risk (just like every other every business), and currently the risk is acceptable for these ads and advertisers to continue.
- ineptech 4y ago
  There's probably some middle ground between "bank-scale KYC" and "people don't steal credit card numbers, do they?". You really think their current process can't be improved on? With all of their billions, their PhDs, their regulatory capture, finding a way to let in most of the real advertisers while keeping out the scammers isn't just too expensive, it's literally impossible? Despite the fact that they have a near monopoly and the legitimate advertisers will jump through almost any hoop imaginable?
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > It would end the days of being able to set up an advertising account in a few hours. Perhaps that's not needed anymore. That ability was never needed and was never a good idea.

Because Google (like other online advertisers and most online services) doesn't have any tighter KYC restrictions than accepting a valid credit card (which, we assume, has already been KYC'd by a bank). Requiring bank-scale KYC on top of that to also work with the advertisers would cut the 4 million advertisers Google currently serves down to a tiny fraction of that (if for no other reason than they don't have infrastructure to background-vet 4 million customers; they don't currently). Perhaps this is the right approach. It would end the days of being able to set up an advertising account in a few hours. Perhaps that's not needed anymore. (This would, of course, mean people giving even more PII to Google. However one feels about that).

manigandham 4y ago
> "doesn't have any tighter KYC restrictions" Yes that's the problem. > "Requiring bank-scale KYC..." Nobody said that. The KYC part is an analogy to the financial industry to use procedures to screen out bad actors. But it doesn't need the same requirements. > " they don't have infrastructure to background-vet 4 million customers" KYC is not difficult. Again, banks and finance companies which are far smaller than Google do this all the time, for all of their customers and anyone involved in transactions. This is 100s of millions of clients. > "Perhaps this is the right approach." This approach is far more nuanced than the binary outcome you're interpreting. There are ad and account approvals already. There are different scales requiring different support and sales already. Having more intensive checks as the spending scales is a very simple and effective strategy that can be applied today. The company doesn't care about the number of customers, it cares about the revenue against potential risk (just like every other every business), and currently the risk is acceptable for these ads and advertisers to continue.
ineptech 4y ago
There's probably some middle ground between "bank-scale KYC" and "people don't steal credit card numbers, do they?". You really think their current process can't be improved on? With all of their billions, their PhDs, their regulatory capture, finding a way to let in most of the real advertisers while keeping out the scammers isn't just too expensive, it's literally impossible? Despite the fact that they have a near monopoly and the legitimate advertisers will jump through almost any hoop imaginable?
JohnFen 4y ago
> It would end the days of being able to set up an advertising account in a few hours. Perhaps that's not needed anymore. That ability was never needed and was never a good idea.