133 points iamflimflam1 1 hour ago 68 comments
CqtGLRGcukpy 1 hour ago | parent
1) Google wants the most money, so they don't care to let dodgy ads thru.
2) There are more ads going out then can be reviewed, so they would rather have people report them, then they automatically reject the report until enough people report it, then an actual person may review it.
As to why Google doesn't use AI to review them? Google would rather use the AI in a way that makes them more money, than review ads and if AI decides to take them down then that's less money for Google.
(To be clear: I don't work for Google in any way, these are just my guesses)
r_lee 58 minutes ago | parent
I would say it's just because there's no incentive to do anything unless a huge media storm breaks out or something.
turning a blind eye to this stuff probably makes them good money
IsTom 56 minutes ago | parent
benoau 56 minutes ago | parent
Then there's the profits from scams, Meta is the only one with the stones to admit they like scam ads because they make up 10% of their revenue. I doubt it's a massive coincidence all the other big platforms are overrun with scams they do as little as possible to police.
NBJack 55 minutes ago | parent
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...
vintermann 39 minutes ago | parent
If only there was a technology which could automate this... But we all know, AI is only used on users, not customers - and users get the two line perl script "AI" which says "We have reviewed your claim and decided to ignore it".
martin_a 27 minutes ago | parent
I have reported so many of those dodgy, scammy, sexualized ads on YouTube, that YouTube/Google has removed the option to report advertisements from my account.
They don't care as long as they're getting paid and there's no immediate liability for them.
wnc3141 16 minutes ago | parent
codygman 12 minutes ago | parent
That's what I do and why I don't even know what brooklinen is.
tanepiper 8 minutes ago | parent
walrus01 5 minutes ago | parent
mischief6 4 minutes ago | parent
walrus01 20 minutes ago | parent
The "more than can be reviewed" might have been a logical conclusion in a purely human based workflow, even if you have the lowest cost per head click workers in like, an external contractor call centre type environment in Bangladesh.
As the author points out, the ordinary consumer class version of publicly available Gemini very accurately classifies the ad as malicious. I really doubt that there are THAT MANY unique new ads being submitted per day that they can't afford the compute to run them through a similar classifier.
MBCook 11 minutes ago | parent
More than can be reviewed for the time and money they’re willing to spend.
Even before AI, they absolutely could’ve done it.
walrus01 7 minutes ago | parent
motbus3 15 minutes ago | parent
StilesCrisis 6 minutes ago | parent
drorco 5 minutes ago | parent
andynrkri 1 hour ago | parent
LollipopYakuza 1 hour ago | parent
itopaloglu83 25 minutes ago | parent
corranh 1 hour ago | parent
anonym29 59 minutes ago | parent
The cost of strictly enforcing stated rules for ads is felt immediately and fully by Google. It is concrete, measurable, and probably non-insignificant; the benefit is essentially goodwill from the narrow sliver of the web that is verbal about this. That is intangible, difficult to measure, even harder to assign a reasonable dollar value to (meaning the ROI could look negative), and the benefit would accrue to parties other than Google who might not even notice.
qwerty_clicks 56 minutes ago | parent
torginus 56 minutes ago | parent
I'm sure if I submitted an app that on the iOS app store that mimicked a system warning that tried to scare people into giving me access, it would not pass the review process.
If instead I decided to embed a WebView and later changed the html to do the same I would likely get booted from the app store (afair Apple's very particular about serving remote content in PWAs, and changing said content, even under benign circumstances).
iOS seems to have less scareware and shady apps than Android anyways.
sippingabonedry 54 minutes ago | parent
90% of the ads I see on YouTube are obvious scams. Many from untraceable shady overseas organizations.
You can see the data if you report them. It's always some unheard of outfit out of Hong Kong or Brazil. I want to know who is funding this.
You don't need to be Kreskin to figure this one out.
vintermann 16 minutes ago | parent
That's at least something. Last I was on a streaming service, they were very fastidious about not revealing who was behind a spammer's rotating "music labels", despite them by law having some kind of payment details for them.
ArcHound 53 minutes ago | parent
To comment on this one: as long as there is no backlash from their real customers (those that buy ads) nothing will change.
[0] https://blog.miloslavhomer.cz/how-google-sees-your-site/
expedition32 52 minutes ago | parent
They'll act if someone threatens to sue otherwise Google doesn't give a shit as long as they get paid.
poisonborz 52 minutes ago | parent
Scoundreller 37 minutes ago | parent
(Could also argue that the scam ad that won the slot for 10 cents would have gone for 9 cents without the scam and Meta's marginal revenue was only 1 cent... but if every ad is 1 cent more...)
Same problem when you want to buy a home in a place where real estate became a means for money laundering or uninhabited store of value
vintermann 10 minutes ago | parent
They're probably taking that into account in their 10% of profit coming from ads estimate.
976157424477 51 minutes ago | parent
rectang 49 minutes ago | parent
tomxor 47 minutes ago | parent
There is a 3rd option: malicious stupidity / aka wilful ignorance.
Google is a collection of individuals, so it's very likely both sides of Hanlon's razor are true: a little malice from those in control, persisting a state of stupidity for those executing the process.
As others have pointed out, there will be resistance to improving a process that negatively impacts their bottom line. Incentives, dictate long term behaviour of organisations; whereas Hanlon's razor works better at an individual level IME.
conradfr 43 minutes ago | parent
I try blocking the most obvious scams by blocking the announcers but it's basically impossible because the same doggy ones keep coming back with a new name.
Also hard because they're not always in a language you understand.
I don't think I should do all this work instead of the biggest ad company in the world just to earn 5€ per day, but I'm also not aware of any better alternative.
dpkirchner 37 minutes ago | parent
dotcoma 43 minutes ago | parent
snailmailman 41 minutes ago | parent
I’ve never seen that. I report ads on YouTube all the time. I’ve reported ads for illegal drugs, illegal firearms, pornography, and all sorts of various scams. I’ve seen similar advertising to the example in this article, mimicking the phone’s UI. Ive reported them. I’ve never once seen Google reply to any of my reports to confirm what happened. I’ve always wondered, and since I continue to see the ads I just assume my reports go straight into a trash bin.
The illegal firearm ad I saw (more than a year ago, now) I was so shocked that I took screenshots and reported it multiple times. The ad advertised that the weapon was “easy to sneak through security” and “didn’t require an id to purchase” I saw the ad several times across multiple weeks. I reported it every time. I don’t think Google ever did anything about it. If they did, it took them weeks
repeekad 33 minutes ago | parent
It's so common and so clearly reported by many people that I'm left to assume Google likes the engagement the profiles bring and chooses to leave them up.
vintermann 14 minutes ago | parent
8cvor6j844qw_d6 37 minutes ago | parent
hsuduebc2 35 minutes ago | parent
HarHarVeryFunny 37 minutes ago | parent
They should let people have more control over what ads they do and don't see.
If Google served me ads on stuff I was interested (I'd be happy to tell them) rather than womens clothing, they I might buy it. I'm a guy - show me as many skimpily dressed women as you like, but I have no need for women's clothes! Try it once or a hundred times it you must, but maybe after the millionth non-purchase you'd think they might figure it out and use that screen real-estate to serve an ad for something that my purchase history or what they know about me indicates I might have some interest in!
Dumb as a rock.
drchaim 37 minutes ago | parent
dpkirchner 36 minutes ago | parent
alpineman 35 minutes ago | parent
beloch 35 minutes ago | parent
If you are reliant on ad revenue, you should be expressing your displeasure to google right now.
snailmailman 13 minutes ago | parent
Like, Google removing Adblock directly caused that. Facebook allowing the ad caused that. The ad led to malicious page that was also hosted on a Microsoft thing, and I ended up reporting it to them too. Microsoft at least promptly took it down within a half hour after I reported it. But these big companies have almost no incentive to stop this, and some of them directly profit off of these scams happening.
gdulli 32 minutes ago | parent
smugglerFlynn 14 minutes ago | parent
If you are lucky, your third-hand owner still checks the oil and puts quality tires on it. If you are not, your third-hand owner pours customer relationships down the drain and doubles down on indiscriminate cost-cutting, alienating good people from the organization.
mito88 31 minutes ago | parent
:)
hn_submit 29 minutes ago | parent
To me this signals a huge opportunity for other companies to dive into. If a new internet search company appeared that returned actual useful search results and clearly delineated ads (like Google used to) I would switch to it almost immediately.
The only way these companies are ever going to change their game is when people vote with their feet!
hsuduebc2 29 minutes ago | parent
hnbad 29 minutes ago | parent
What does killing dodgy ads do for Google's bottom line? It's removing paying customers and driving down competition for (and therefore value of) ad space. What's the cost of dodgy ads to Google? The sites that use Google Ads will continue using Google Ads if they do nothing about the dodgy ads. The sites that don't use Google Ads won't be swayed to use Google Ads if they do remove the dodgy ads. Google is not held liable for serving dodgy ads so there's no direct risk associated with serving them.
Why should Google remove the dodgy ads? "Don't be evil"? That motto exceeded its shelf life before it was first publicly posted.
Hanlon's razor is nice and all but there's a difference between malice and amoral apathy. Corporations would sell shredded orphans as fuel if it made economical sense to do so.
einpoklum 28 minutes ago | parent
Because you're using an application which presents those ads to you.
Avoid Google/Alphabet application as much as is possible, and you'll see a lot less / none of this kind of ads.
It looks like you're using their YouTube client. Try NewPipe:
there are no ads with NewPipe.
stillpointlab 27 minutes ago | parent
I was feeling very guilty last night as I was watching YouTube and getting 30s+ unskippable ad blocks every 10 minutes in some video. And the repetition and low quality were grating on me. I thought: being rich is never having to watch another ad. Why am I letting these ads own spaced repetition slots in my brain that could be filled with knowledge? Instead of learning, my mental energy is being taken up by psychological manipulation to purchase? The relentless repetition of the mind-numbing ad interspersed throughout otherwise educational content.
Being rich is owning the real-estate of my own mind. I sometimes feel like a digital serf in my own head.
hsuduebc2 23 minutes ago | parent
akersten 10 minutes ago | parent
See the headline of this article for Exhibit (I've actually run out of letters in the alphabet) why adblocking is a moral imperative.
mschuster91 24 minutes ago | parent
The US regulatory authorities DGAF ever since Lina Khan exited the picture and the EU regulatory authorities might have the legal basis to hold Big AdTech accountable, but the EU is at the moment busy trying to fend off BS from the Trump admin, they do not have time and risk appetite (aka Trump retaliating on behalf of Big AdTech) left for scam ads.
Waterluvian 14 minutes ago | parent
krttherealest 9 minutes ago | parent
pschastain 8 minutes ago | parent
demibabs 4 minutes ago | parent
I have the same question regarding “why is Workday’s resume parser so shit?”
michael_j_x 4 minutes ago | parent