5 ms·

Because a site that is willing to host these kinds of ads may use more than one ad service, and Google may not have detected all the bad ad services. The fault

by cjensen 11y ago

Because a site that is willing to host these kinds of ads may use more than one ad service, and Google may not have detected all the bad ad services. The fault here lies squarely with the websites. They choose to work with scum. Let them fix the mess instead of blaming Google.

the8472 11y ago
> and Google may not have detected all the bad ad services. You're basically arguing that false positives in an external content blocking service is better than false negatives. I strongly disagree with that kind of notion. It reeks of nannying.
- derefr 11y ago
  I think it's more of a game-theoretic "principal-agent-problem avoiding" solution. If system X.Y.Z is having a problem, the way to allow the most degrees of freedom in the way it gets fixed (and therefore, usually, the way to get it fixed most efficiently) is to put pressure on component X. X will put pressure on X.Y, who will in turn put pressure on X.Y.Z. But if the system can also be fixed by, say, getting X to find a new X.Y, that's good too! An example of this: auto insurance. When you get in an accident and want money, you don't sue the other guy; you sue your own insurance company, who sues the other guy's insurance company, who in turn sues them. If, somewhere during that propagation, an alternative is found (e.g. the two insurance companies agree that it was a no-fault collision under arbitration and settle for some amount), then you end up achieving the same effect while putting less stress on the system as a whole.
neotek 11y ago
>The fault here lies squarely with the websites. They choose to work with scum. It isn't much of a choice, since they're not allowed to use AdSense or any of the other major ad networks.
MereInterest 11y ago
I have a browser. I tell the browser to go to a site. The browser refuses to go to the site. This is clearly an issue with the browser.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by cjensen 11y ago

the8472 11y ago

> and Google may not have detected all the bad ad services. You're basically arguing that false positives in an external content blocking service is better than false negatives. I strongly disagree with that kind of notion. It reeks of nannying.

derefr 11y ago
I think it's more of a game-theoretic "principal-agent-problem avoiding" solution. If system X.Y.Z is having a problem, the way to allow the most degrees of freedom in the way it gets fixed (and therefore, usually, the way to get it fixed most efficiently) is to put pressure on component X. X will put pressure on X.Y, who will in turn put pressure on X.Y.Z. But if the system can also be fixed by, say, getting X to find a new X.Y, that's good too! An example of this: auto insurance. When you get in an accident and want money, you don't sue the other guy; you sue your own insurance company, who sues the other guy's insurance company, who in turn sues them. If, somewhere during that propagation, an alternative is found (e.g. the two insurance companies agree that it was a no-fault collision under arbitration and settle for some amount), then you end up achieving the same effect while putting less stress on the system as a whole.

neotek 11y ago

>The fault here lies squarely with the websites. They choose to work with scum. It isn't much of a choice, since they're not allowed to use AdSense or any of the other major ad networks.

MereInterest 11y ago

I have a browser. I tell the browser to go to a site. The browser refuses to go to the site. This is clearly an issue with the browser.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]