4 ms·

Your math is off, without more data. What do you think the number of different ads being displayed is, given how much each ad costs? Estimates suggest it's ab

Your math is off, without more data. What do you think the number of different ads being displayed is, given how much each ad costs? Estimates suggest it's about 30 billion ad impressions per day to earn that. If each distinct ad gets 1000 impressions, that's 10 billion ads to review per year. Let's be super generous, and assume it's 10k impressions, leaving us with 1 billion ads to review. Let's further assume it's 1 minute per ad to review them, because people are super good at it. This will take 694440 person/days to review. So to even give a 24 hour turnaround time, they'd have to hire 694,000 people. If they pay them 65k each (yearly minimum wage in california), that's 45 billion a year. This again, assumes we have ads with lots of impressions, it's only a minute per ad, and that we are okay with 24 hour turnaround time. Otherwise, it costs more. It's really easy for people to play the "company makes x, they can afford y" game, but without real data it's sort of magical thinking. I doubt humans could easily keep up with the review load here, at scale, at any reasonable cost/living wage.

mschuster91 3y ago
So what? If Google is only profitable because the vast externalized costs to it are borne by society at large (e.g. malvertising, scams, unsafe "medical" products and supplements, competitors placing ads in an unfair way [1]), then maybe prices for advertising have to rise to match the prevention cost, or Google has to figure out other ways of staying profitable. I don't care all that much. And if it leads to less, but higher quality ads in the end, even better. [1] https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG%20Frankfurt&Datum=02.02.2017&Aktenzeichen=6%20U%20209%2F16 https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht...
- DannyBee 3y ago
  The so what is that the comment is completely and totally wrong in it's estimation of how simple or not it would be. That is all. We should decide what to do about it based on correct data and sane assumptions, not random assertions that are off by orders of magnitude and backed by no data.
sccxy 3y ago
Strange explanation. If Google cannot handle legit business then it should manage their resources better. Advertising malware is not legit business. "We are so profitable and big" is not excuse for it. It is reason why they earn so much money, they do not care if criminals advertise malware. Now banks must spend awful lot of money to fight money laundering. Maybe it is time to force Google to take some responsibility.
- DannyBee 3y ago
  "Advertising malware is not legit business." Sure. I"m pointing out this simple sort of "they can easily afford to do x" is usually nonsense. I haven't commented at all on what the result should be (not allowed to do it or whatever), simply that the math that it would be simple to fix is wrong. If we are going to argue about things in a useful way, we should avoid random assertions without data that don't really advance the argument, especially when they are trivially wrong?
  - sccxy 3y ago
    Sorry, but that is most fanboyish thing ever. If Google cannot handle their ad business, when there are too many customers, then stop taking new customers. Very simple. But taking money from criminals is very profitable and that is the reason. Edit: Checked DannyBee profile: "I manage developer workflow tools and services at Google" That explains why he is defending Google's scammy behaviours.
    - DannyBee 3y ago
      Ah, i see we've moved onto ad-hominen attacks and dismissal rather than engaging for real. That certainly may feel good, but it changes nothing about the argument? This sort of dismissal based on who you work for is both childish, and unproductive to a real discussion. Similar to the "most fanboyish thing ever" comment, which, honestly, if telling someone their totally unsourced math and claim is wrong, by providing data and real math, is the most fanboyish thing you've ever seen, then i think you are very lucky in what you see ;) Beyond that, i'll repeat what I said - i simply pointed out the assertion and math is wrong. That is all. You are the one claiming i am defending anything, beyond that, at all. I was very careful about not defending anything, and in fact said i'm open to all sorts of views about what to do about it. Maybe you should re-read what i wrote, and point out any point where i did anything but show that the claim made was wrong, and the math was wrong?

mschuster91 3y ago

So what? If Google is only profitable because the vast externalized costs to it are borne by society at large (e.g. malvertising, scams, unsafe "medical" products and supplements, competitors placing ads in an unfair way [1]), then maybe prices for advertising have to rise to match the prevention cost, or Google has to figure out other ways of staying profitable. I don't care all that much. And if it leads to less, but higher quality ads in the end, even better. [1] https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG%20Frankfurt&Datum=02.02.2017&Aktenzeichen=6%20U%20209%2F16 https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht...

DannyBee 3y ago
The so what is that the comment is completely and totally wrong in it's estimation of how simple or not it would be. That is all. We should decide what to do about it based on correct data and sane assumptions, not random assertions that are off by orders of magnitude and backed by no data.

sccxy 3y ago

Strange explanation. If Google cannot handle legit business then it should manage their resources better. Advertising malware is not legit business. "We are so profitable and big" is not excuse for it. It is reason why they earn so much money, they do not care if criminals advertise malware. Now banks must spend awful lot of money to fight money laundering. Maybe it is time to force Google to take some responsibility.

DannyBee 3y ago
"Advertising malware is not legit business." Sure. I"m pointing out this simple sort of "they can easily afford to do x" is usually nonsense. I haven't commented at all on what the result should be (not allowed to do it or whatever), simply that the math that it would be simple to fix is wrong. If we are going to argue about things in a useful way, we should avoid random assertions without data that don't really advance the argument, especially when they are trivially wrong?
- sccxy 3y ago
  Sorry, but that is most fanboyish thing ever. If Google cannot handle their ad business, when there are too many customers, then stop taking new customers. Very simple. But taking money from criminals is very profitable and that is the reason. Edit: Checked DannyBee profile: "I manage developer workflow tools and services at Google" That explains why he is defending Google's scammy behaviours.
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    Ah, i see we've moved onto ad-hominen attacks and dismissal rather than engaging for real. That certainly may feel good, but it changes nothing about the argument? This sort of dismissal based on who you work for is both childish, and unproductive to a real discussion. Similar to the "most fanboyish thing ever" comment, which, honestly, if telling someone their totally unsourced math and claim is wrong, by providing data and real math, is the most fanboyish thing you've ever seen, then i think you are very lucky in what you see ;) Beyond that, i'll repeat what I said - i simply pointed out the assertion and math is wrong. That is all. You are the one claiming i am defending anything, beyond that, at all. I was very careful about not defending anything, and in fact said i'm open to all sorts of views about what to do about it. Maybe you should re-read what i wrote, and point out any point where i did anything but show that the claim made was wrong, and the math was wrong?