6 ms·
If there are any googlers here, I'd like to report an even more dangerous website. As much as 30-50% of the traffic to it relates to malware or scams, and it ha
by Jackson__ 1y ago
If there are any googlers here, I'd like to report an even more dangerous website. As much as 30-50% of the traffic to it relates to malware or scams, and it has gone unpunished for a very long time.
The address appears to be adsense.google.com.
- mcv 1y agoYes, the irony of Google warning for other sites as malware, is not lost on me.
- pkulak 1y agosites.google.com
- theendisney 1y agoThe same outfit is runimg a domain called blogger. Reminds me of MS blocking a website of mine for dangerous script. The offending thing i did was use document.write to put copyright 2025 (with the current year) at the end of static pages.
- samplatt 1y agoMy work's email filter regularly flags links to JIRA and github as dangerous. It stopped being even ironically amusing after a while.
- typpilol 1y agoI feel like the GitHub one might be okay since a lot of malware binaries are hosted there still.
- close04 1y agoMicrosoft's own Outlook.com flags Windows Insider emails coming from a .microsoft.com domain as junk even after marking the domain as "no junk". They know themselves well.
- Deestan 1y agoFrequent frustration past week for me: The integrated button to join a Microsoft Teams meeting directly from my Microsoft Outlook Calendar doesn't work because Microsoft needs to scan the link from Microsoft to Microsoft for malware before proceeding, and the malware scanning service has temporary downtime and serves me static page saying "The content you are accessing cannot currently be verified".
- immibis 1y agoTo be fair, that's a legally invalid copyright notice.
- citrin_ru 1y agosites.google.com is widely abused but so practically any site which allows users to host content of their choice and make it publicly available. Where google can be different is that they famously refuse yo do work which they cannot automate and probably they cannot (or don’t want) to automate detection/blocking of spam/phishing hosted on sites.google.com and processing of abuse reports.
- yard2010 1y agoThe nerve of letting everyone run a phishing campaign on sites.google.com but marking a perfectly safe website as malicious. Enshitification ensues.
- dkersten 1y agoAlso YouTube.com serves a lot of scam advertisements. They should block that too.
- p0w3n3d 1y agoI think google is crumbling under the weight of their size. They are no longer able to process the requested commercials with due diligence.
- boesboes 1y agoNah, they just don't give a fuck. Never have
- Chris2048 1y agoI see the same scam/deepfake ad(s) pretty much persistently. Maybe they actually differ slightly (they are AI gen mostly), but it's pretty obvious what they are, and I'm sure they get flagged a lot. They just need to introduce a basic deposit to post ads, and you lose it if you put up a scam ad. Would soon pay for the staff needed to police it, and prevent scammers from bypassing admin by trivially creating new accounts.
- fuck_google 1y ago[dead]
- never_inline 1y agoThat's probably a good idea. They can also earn interest on the deposit. (Not that they need the money).
- dkersten 1y agoI used to flag obvious scam adverts. A bunch of times I'd even get an email response a few weeks later saying it was taken down. But then I'd see it again (maybe slightly different or by a "different" advertiser, who knows). Its whack-a-mole. The reality is that google profits from scam adverts, so they don't proactively do anything about it and hide behind the "at our scale, we can't effectively do anything about it" argument. Which is complete horseshit because if you can't prevent obvious scams on your platform, you don't deserve to have a platform. Google doesn't have to be running at their scale. "We would make less money" is not a valid excuse. We'd all make more money if we could ignore laws and let people be scammed or taken advantage of. There's plenty of ways they could solve it, but they choose not to. IMHO this should be a criminal offence and google executives should be harshly punished. Its also why I have a rather negative view of googlers, since they wilfully perpetuate this stuff by working on adtech while nothing is being done about the normal everyday people getting scammed each day. Its only getting worse with AI, but I've been seeing it for years.
- shevy-java 1y agoYeah - that website keeps on spamming me down with useless stuff. I was able to block most of this via ublock origin but Google disabled this - can not download it from here anymore: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpal... Funniest nonsense "explanation": "This extension is no longer available because it doesn't follow best practices for Chrome extensions." In reality Google killed it because it threatens their greed income. Ads, ads and more ads.
- whatsupdog 1y ago[flagged]
- immibis 1y agoUse one of the forks. librewolf, waterfox, zen. Firefox itself lost trust when Mozilla tried to push the new Terms of Use earlier this year. That was so aggressively user-hostile that nobody should trust Mozilla ever again. Using a fork puts an insulation layer between you and Mozilla. Librewolf is just a directly de-mozillaed and privacy-enhanced Firefox, similar to Ungoogled Chromium. I've been trying to get in the habit of using Zen Browser, which has a bunch of UI changes.
- Kbelicius 1y ago> Firefox itself lost trust when Mozilla tried to push the new Terms of Use earlier this year. Those terms of use aren't in place any longer. I'm surprised that listening to the users is viewed as something bad.
- BSDobelix 1y agoWhat i really don't understand at least here in Europe the advertising partner (adsense) must investigate at least minimally whether the advertising is illegal or fraudulent, i understand that sites.google etc are under "safe harbor" but that's not the point with adsense since people from google "click" the publish button and also get money to publish that ad.
- Nextgrid 1y agoThe law is only for plebs like you and me. Companies get a pass. I'm still amazed how deploying spyware would've rightfully landed you in jail a couple decades back, but do the same thing on the web under the justification of advertising/marketing and suddenly it's ok.
- BSDobelix 1y ago>Companies get a pass. I'm pretty sure that if Springer were to make a fraudulent ad, they would instantly be slapped with a lawsuit and face public outcry.
- sam_lowry_ 1y agoSpringer itself is nothing but scam.
- BSDobelix 1y agoTrue, but at least the ad's are not ;)
- aleph_minus_one 1y agoWhich one of the two Springer-s? ;-)
- AshamedCaptain 1y agoI have reported over a dozen ads to AdSense (Europe) because of them being outright scams (e.g. on weather apps, an AdSense banner claiming "There is a new upgrade to this program, click here to download it") . Google has invariably closed my reports claiming that they do not find any violation of the adsense policies.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]