3 ms·

The problem is the scummy adsense ads don't hurt Google's reputation. Outside the techie crowd people don't know the ads are from Google.

• hansvm 13d ago
  That seems fixable. When people include this JS garbage, have a header/title/etc stating that this is Google's professional opinion. Bake it into a library offering enough other features that a large number of people are inclined to use it.
  • sysguest 13d ago
    hmm could you explain more?
    • hansvm 13d ago
      - The big problem is that malicious ads are being displayed without appropriate attribution - Add that attribution -- blame Google (or, supposing the ads are good, credit Google; a good header goes a long way toward swaying people's opinions) - But it doesn't matter if a single website appropriately attributes Google's highest/lowest-quality ads. The last step (speculative and hand-wavy) is to incorporate that behaviour in some sort of software more people want to use. If you're fighting alone then you'll lose. If you can convince more people that appropriately crediting Google's advertising successes and blaming their malicious failures is advantageous, you'll (by definition) have more traction in the anti-megacorp-endorsed scams and other life-altering consequences.
      • eek2121 12d ago
        The second you load JS onto your page, you lose that ability, you know that, right? the scammy ads aren't limited to that tiny little box you designate for ads. Advertisers work around that limitation pretty easily, and you should also probably read AdSense terms of service before doing too much to blame google. Some of the language will surprise you.
        • ftchd 12d ago
          Such as? Provide the relevant context that you're referring to as suprising.
        • dwattttt 12d ago
          When you put it like that, it seems like it's too dangerous to offer that kind of access! Maybe Google shouldn't sell it.
      • _carbyau_ 12d ago
        Couldn't this be a browser extension?
        • fn-mote 12d ago
          Probably, but then only the people with that extension would see the note. If people are going to learn to install an extension, it should be UBlock Origin. That will solve more problems than attributing scam ads.
      • sysguest 12d ago
        hmm thought this was about adwords JS 'intelligently' reading page contents, and when it finds such attribution with some special tags, filters out certain ads... well thought I was getting some actual useful tip
      • Den_VR 12d ago
        Ad viewers are about as empowered as the cow the goes into your cheeseburger. No agency, and no communication mechanism to the rancher’s actual customer. These companies that abstain from adsense and it’s revenue are WWW vegans.
  • WD-42 12d ago
    The only people that would care are already using adblockers and not seeing these ads anyway.
• bmandale 13d ago
  It doesn't practically matter whether the ads are from google. They're shown on a third party site, not using google won't get rid of them, only not using that site will (or installing an adblocker...). Users very reasonably blame the site, who have direct agency to remove the ads.
  • bobthepanda 13d ago
    IIRC this dilemma was one of the things that was driving the Google antitrust case that unfortunately will not result in divorcing search from ads.
  • redbluething 12d ago
    Agree it's reasonable. I removed the ads :P
• MASNeo 13d ago
  Calls from law enforcement is laud and clear: BigTech is not doing enough to fight fraud, war and other crimes, they make money from criminals. Nobody’s yet cared enough to sue them, or their managers at ICC yet. However, eventually an ambitious lawyer will try to make the case, especially if fraud and human trafficking continues to grow like it is.
  • justinclift 12d ago
    > at ICC yet. Want to take bets on whether the US gov wades in if that happens? The US gov is directly antagonistic to the ICC and will undermine them whenever possible. This would present them another chance.
  • philipallstar 12d ago
    VW makes money from criminals. So does Verizon. So does Coke.
• MikeNotThePope 12d ago
  It does in the sense that they're losing business, as people describe in this thread. But I get your point, Google seems to be enjoying the profits more than the harm to their reputation. If it gets bad enough, maybe they'll rethink.
  • benatkin 12d ago
    They're losing business that they don't want. Silicon Valley culture has embraced saying no, firing clients and customers, choosing the right audience, etc. This even fits into finding product-market fit. You don't try to please everyone, and find a well-defined segment. So to Google it might not seem like it's getting bad at all. To them, maybe the trash took itself out, they got rid of that annoying customer who complains about their marketplace, whereas they appreciate the quiet reporting of an ad that's against the ToS...