4 ms·

What do you mean by a closed ecosystem in this context? Because I wouldn’t considered YT ads a closed ecosystem compared to MAO. They are both a publishing plat

What do you mean by a closed ecosystem in this context? Because I wouldn’t considered YT ads a closed ecosystem compared to MAO. They are both a publishing platforms, one is just paid. The problem with spam or malware is that there is monetary return for your investment in it. Paying to distribute spam or malware is reasonable strategy if there is a decent ROI. Your local businesses flooding your mailbox with spam through USPS are all paying for it. In publishing, I’d consider something like The Economist or NTY to be a “closed ecosystem”. Many of those places (like CNBC, Fox, WaPo, etc) have auto generated spam articles every day whether it’s a company's earnings or a press release regurgitation. Sometimes that garbage can be accidentally harmful. At least we’re not at the point that CNBC push crypto miners in their blogs. We’re not far off though

blitzar 1y ago
Its googles advertising network - there are and should be guard rails in place. They should audit the content. They should do KYC. They should do many many things. "it's better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission (and keep the money either way)" is probably up on the wall instead of "do no evil" https://support.google.com/adspolicy https://support.google.com/adspolicy
- eddythompson80 1y ago
  That would make it a moderated ecosystem, not a closed one. AFAIK, Section 230 protection extends to online advertisement as these companies claim the ads are user generated content. There were many law suits against Google and Meta about being responsible for the content and ads their algorithms push and how it radicalized people or harmed people. I recall Google and Meta won all those cases. Plus, in the 1960s there was a famous Supreme Court case against NYT for publishing a pro-civil rights ads that contained wrong claims against some like cop or politician in the south. They argues that NYT was libel for the malicious attack. The Supreme Court ruled in NYT favor because even if the ad buyers were malicious, they need to prove that NYT was also intentionally malicious in their intent

blitzar 1y ago

Its googles advertising network - there are and should be guard rails in place. They should audit the content. They should do KYC. They should do many many things. "it's better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission (and keep the money either way)" is probably up on the wall instead of "do no evil" https://support.google.com/adspolicy https://support.google.com/adspolicy

eddythompson80 1y ago
That would make it a moderated ecosystem, not a closed one. AFAIK, Section 230 protection extends to online advertisement as these companies claim the ads are user generated content. There were many law suits against Google and Meta about being responsible for the content and ads their algorithms push and how it radicalized people or harmed people. I recall Google and Meta won all those cases. Plus, in the 1960s there was a famous Supreme Court case against NYT for publishing a pro-civil rights ads that contained wrong claims against some like cop or politician in the south. They argues that NYT was libel for the malicious attack. The Supreme Court ruled in NYT favor because even if the ad buyers were malicious, they need to prove that NYT was also intentionally malicious in their intent