5 ms·

It's quite important that SERPs are scrapeable, because they keep advertising scams like ETA/ESTA sites: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56886957 https://

It's quite important that SERPs are scrapeable, because they keep advertising scams like ETA/ESTA sites: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56886957 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56886957

cwmoore 2mo ago
[dead]
Terr_ 2mo ago
It's interesting to imagine how the world would be different, if internet advertising giants were partially liable for scams/malware that they facilitate.
- asdefghyk 2mo ago
  I recall a articale I read "somewhere" that reported the Facebook makes big profit (Billions) from scams. So they have no ( or no strong motive) motive to shut such scams down An example is courtcase against Meta for using a Australians mining billionares likeness to promote a crypo investment scam. https://www.afr.com/technology/dad-it-s-a-fraud-call-that-sparked-forrest-s-60m-war-on-facebook-20260409-p5zml9 https://www.afr.com/technology/dad-it-s-a-fraud-call-that-sp...
  - bluGill 2mo ago
    I'm surprised legitimate companies don't pressure Facebook on this though. There are enough scams on Facebook that I now refuse to believe anything there, even though some of the things look useful and probably are not scams (and also are things I didn't know existed without an ad - thus filling one of the legitimate values of advertisements: informing me of things that would make my life better but I don't know exist).
    - FireBeyond 2mo ago
      Anyone making a Kickstarter knows that within days if not hours all your images, pictures, renderings will be harvested and dozens of "copycat" sites will be "selling" your product now, regardless of whether its a real thing or not yet, and they'll be advertising it on FB and IG. I say those words in quotes - they have no intention of shipping you anything, just skimming low-hanging fruit from someone's ideas.
  - pnw 2mo ago
    Your first assertion is obviously untrue. And fake celebrity endorsements pre-date the existence of the Internet, let alone Meta. There were lawsuits back in the 1800s on this topic. This is hardly a new problem unique to Meta.
    - vitally3643 2mo ago
      There's nothing obvious about it. Meta makes money on ads, period. Scams work and get clicks. Therefore, meta makes money on scams running rampant on their platform.
  - impossiblefork 2mo ago
    This is actually illegal here in Sweden though. Lawsuits are ongoing. I'm kind of surprised that there haven't been criminal cases.
    - RobotToaster 2mo ago
      even in the UK where we don't have "personality rights" it would almost certainly come under the common law offence of "passing off"
  - ocdtrekkie 2mo ago
    This is why Section 230 is fundamentally wrong. Because the core concept of it assumes reasonable behavior without monetary incentives. Which is great if you're legislating someone's personal forum about their hobby. But Section 230 applied to the ad industry is incredibly, incredibly broken, because advertising companies do not have any incentive to act in good faith. As soon as a dollar of profit is involved in a content moderation decision, a business should be fully liable for the decisions around content on their platform. If I report an ad to Facebook and Facebook decides to keep it they should be accepting legal responsibility for that ad. You want to stop scams online, you make the platforms liable and then grant them the ability to recover the losses by going after the advertisers.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      Section 230 is fine but people keep misapplying it. It says Facebook didn't publish the ads, the ads publisher did. It doesn't say Facebook doesn't have to take them down. It doesn't say Facebook can't be ordered to reveal who the ad publisher is so they can go to jail.
- izacus 2mo ago
  Imagine how world would be different if the actual scammers and malware creators would be prosecuted and not insteead demanded that internet giants play a privatized police force.
  - pluralmonad 2mo ago
    Aren't the giants closer to the mob than a police force? I suppose those things are not terribly different in practice, but Google, Facebook, et al make money from leaving the scams on their ad networks.
    - izacus 2mo ago
      Either way works - I'd still prefer the scammers to be liable and persecuted for their scamming than demanding that platforms enact censorship and policeing control.
      - AlotOfReading 2mo ago
        The platform: 1. Takes money from the scammer 2. Tells the scammer how to target people 3. Serves the scam to the consumer, ensuring they see it 4. Takes a cut of the action when the scam is successful 5. Tells the scammer how to optimize their campaign 6. Continues working with scammers after they're reported The scammer has a fairly small part in the overall operation. The platform is doing almost all of the actual work perpetrating the scam. They're not remotely innocent here.
        izacus 2mo ago
        This is some awfully twisted logic to defend scammers and fraudsters. Your whole chain stops being relevant if you actually persecute criminals with the same gusto as Disney jackboots anyone voilating their IP. Instead you demand megacorps to start scanning content and censoring people.
        Alpha3031 2mo ago
- WarmWash 2mo ago
  Ironically it's only really people who heavily ad-block/privacy-protect that get these scam/malware ads. When Google has no profile on you, your view is virtually worthless, so it's only bottom feeders that bid on those views. Average users get Coke and Tide ads. Its usually the most technically adept that get the worst ads, and usually they just turn their ad block back on.
  - cute_boi 2mo ago
    From where did you come to conclusion that adblock users get malware ads? This is the first time I am hearing this thing.
    - WarmWash 2mo ago
      They aren't, because they are blocking ads. But when they turn off ad-block, to "see what it's like", they are not getting an accurate view. It's usually all crypto and other scammy/vices type ads. Go look at your mom's browser. Her Google ads are going to be clothes, tissues, and cookware. Nigerian prince scams cannot outbid Kleenex without breaking the economics of the scam. But they can get loaded when Kleenex no-bids because they don't know who the viewer is. Trust me, ad-tech is far far beyond 2004 when ad block showed up. (I'll add that of course there are other less legitimate ad networks, and I'm not counting "snake oil" products, which are essentially scams but customers still swear by them)
      - yencabulator 2mo ago
        You can buy any ad targeting you want. "Elderly, lives alone, is not too poor, is not tech-savvy" is a great target audience for an online scam. I don't understand why you claim that targeting doesn't happen; I see it happening with people I know, who wouldn't even know what adblock is.
  - tjpnz 2mo ago
    If I wasn't blocking ads this is what I would normally be seeing.
- tjpnz 2mo ago
  Presumably they would only have to show they're doing some simple due diligence. At minimum KYC and a reporting process that works. Neither of which Google et el do currently.
exe34 2mo ago
Same with land registry UK, it takes me several tries even though I know I should be looking for the .gov version. Last time I only realised I got the ad version because it asked me to pay for something that's free on the gov version.
account42 2mo ago
> Applying for an Esta travel permit to visit the US should cost no more than $14 Ah, good old times.

It's quite important that SERPs are scrapeable, because they keep advertising scams like ETA/ESTA sites: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56886957 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56886957

cwmoore 2mo ago

[dead]

Terr_ 2mo ago

It's interesting to imagine how the world would be different, if internet advertising giants were partially liable for scams/malware that they facilitate.

asdefghyk 2mo ago
I recall a articale I read "somewhere" that reported the Facebook makes big profit (Billions) from scams. So they have no ( or no strong motive) motive to shut such scams down An example is courtcase against Meta for using a Australians mining billionares likeness to promote a crypo investment scam. https://www.afr.com/technology/dad-it-s-a-fraud-call-that-sparked-forrest-s-60m-war-on-facebook-20260409-p5zml9 https://www.afr.com/technology/dad-it-s-a-fraud-call-that-sp...
- bluGill 2mo ago
  I'm surprised legitimate companies don't pressure Facebook on this though. There are enough scams on Facebook that I now refuse to believe anything there, even though some of the things look useful and probably are not scams (and also are things I didn't know existed without an ad - thus filling one of the legitimate values of advertisements: informing me of things that would make my life better but I don't know exist).
  - FireBeyond 2mo ago
    Anyone making a Kickstarter knows that within days if not hours all your images, pictures, renderings will be harvested and dozens of "copycat" sites will be "selling" your product now, regardless of whether its a real thing or not yet, and they'll be advertising it on FB and IG. I say those words in quotes - they have no intention of shipping you anything, just skimming low-hanging fruit from someone's ideas.
- pnw 2mo ago
  Your first assertion is obviously untrue. And fake celebrity endorsements pre-date the existence of the Internet, let alone Meta. There were lawsuits back in the 1800s on this topic. This is hardly a new problem unique to Meta.
  - vitally3643 2mo ago
    There's nothing obvious about it. Meta makes money on ads, period. Scams work and get clicks. Therefore, meta makes money on scams running rampant on their platform.
- impossiblefork 2mo ago
  This is actually illegal here in Sweden though. Lawsuits are ongoing. I'm kind of surprised that there haven't been criminal cases.
  - RobotToaster 2mo ago
    even in the UK where we don't have "personality rights" it would almost certainly come under the common law offence of "passing off"
- ocdtrekkie 2mo ago
  This is why Section 230 is fundamentally wrong. Because the core concept of it assumes reasonable behavior without monetary incentives. Which is great if you're legislating someone's personal forum about their hobby. But Section 230 applied to the ad industry is incredibly, incredibly broken, because advertising companies do not have any incentive to act in good faith. As soon as a dollar of profit is involved in a content moderation decision, a business should be fully liable for the decisions around content on their platform. If I report an ad to Facebook and Facebook decides to keep it they should be accepting legal responsibility for that ad. You want to stop scams online, you make the platforms liable and then grant them the ability to recover the losses by going after the advertisers.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Section 230 is fine but people keep misapplying it. It says Facebook didn't publish the ads, the ads publisher did. It doesn't say Facebook doesn't have to take them down. It doesn't say Facebook can't be ordered to reveal who the ad publisher is so they can go to jail.
izacus 2mo ago
Imagine how world would be different if the actual scammers and malware creators would be prosecuted and not insteead demanded that internet giants play a privatized police force.
- pluralmonad 2mo ago
  Aren't the giants closer to the mob than a police force? I suppose those things are not terribly different in practice, but Google, Facebook, et al make money from leaving the scams on their ad networks.
  - izacus 2mo ago
    Either way works - I'd still prefer the scammers to be liable and persecuted for their scamming than demanding that platforms enact censorship and policeing control.
    - AlotOfReading 2mo ago
      The platform: 1. Takes money from the scammer 2. Tells the scammer how to target people 3. Serves the scam to the consumer, ensuring they see it 4. Takes a cut of the action when the scam is successful 5. Tells the scammer how to optimize their campaign 6. Continues working with scammers after they're reported The scammer has a fairly small part in the overall operation. The platform is doing almost all of the actual work perpetrating the scam. They're not remotely innocent here.
      - izacus 2mo ago
        This is some awfully twisted logic to defend scammers and fraudsters. Your whole chain stops being relevant if you actually persecute criminals with the same gusto as Disney jackboots anyone voilating their IP. Instead you demand megacorps to start scanning content and censoring people.
        Alpha3031 2mo ago
WarmWash 2mo ago
Ironically it's only really people who heavily ad-block/privacy-protect that get these scam/malware ads. When Google has no profile on you, your view is virtually worthless, so it's only bottom feeders that bid on those views. Average users get Coke and Tide ads. Its usually the most technically adept that get the worst ads, and usually they just turn their ad block back on.
- cute_boi 2mo ago
  From where did you come to conclusion that adblock users get malware ads? This is the first time I am hearing this thing.
  - WarmWash 2mo ago
    They aren't, because they are blocking ads. But when they turn off ad-block, to "see what it's like", they are not getting an accurate view. It's usually all crypto and other scammy/vices type ads. Go look at your mom's browser. Her Google ads are going to be clothes, tissues, and cookware. Nigerian prince scams cannot outbid Kleenex without breaking the economics of the scam. But they can get loaded when Kleenex no-bids because they don't know who the viewer is. Trust me, ad-tech is far far beyond 2004 when ad block showed up. (I'll add that of course there are other less legitimate ad networks, and I'm not counting "snake oil" products, which are essentially scams but customers still swear by them)
    - yencabulator 2mo ago
      You can buy any ad targeting you want. "Elderly, lives alone, is not too poor, is not tech-savvy" is a great target audience for an online scam. I don't understand why you claim that targeting doesn't happen; I see it happening with people I know, who wouldn't even know what adblock is.
- tjpnz 2mo ago
  If I wasn't blocking ads this is what I would normally be seeing.
tjpnz 2mo ago
Presumably they would only have to show they're doing some simple due diligence. At minimum KYC and a reporting process that works. Neither of which Google et el do currently.

exe34 2mo ago

Same with land registry UK, it takes me several tries even though I know I should be looking for the .gov version. Last time I only realised I got the ad version because it asked me to pay for something that's free on the gov version.

account42 2mo ago

> Applying for an Esta travel permit to visit the US should cost no more than $14 Ah, good old times.