Top
Best
New

Posted by iamflimflam1 10 hours ago

Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?(www.atomic14.com)
654 points | 305 commentspage 2
radium3d 1 hour ago|
Not just dodgy but downright malware links. It's insane. had one with a full screen mcafee level scam. Dropping the ball Google.
erros 8 hours ago||
Money. They make so much money from malvertisement that it doesn't make sense to remediate them. It's corporate greed and they've known about this since the 2010s, various campaigns have sprung up and have caused untold X amount of dollars in damages in breaches, and nothing changes. I've heard at least one FBI agent who had investigated cases related to malvertisement put Google up there with some of the worst ad networks.
ocdtrekkie 8 hours ago|
This is it. The truth is Google's largest revenue sources are scams, fraud, and malware, and they wouldn't be in business without them. They're not going to remove all of their highest pay per click customers because it might harm society or something.

Just try to convince Google to remove "MapsQuest Driving Directions", a browser hijacking extension advertiser who clearly impersonates one of Google's competitors: It's an extremely high value scam targeting seniors (the folks who mostly look for MapQuest on... Google) and it makes them way too much money for them to stop it.

vannevar 9 hours ago||
I assume it is the same reason Facebook serves dodgy ads: it makes them money and they have had no liability for the material they choose to serve to users. There are a handful of types of content that could generate bad press (some sexual or racist content, for example), so they police those. But ordinary scams generate engagement and make them money, and since they are generally immune from liability for content under Section 230, there's no downside for them. I've always thought there might be an end-run around Section 230 where the algorithm is tuned to preferentially present fraudulent content, thereby implicating the company in the advertiser's fraud. But as far as I know, no one has tested that approach.
celestialcheese 8 hours ago||
We had to hire a full time person to monitor and block click-trick "Continue" / "Download" scam ads on Google Ad Manager. With the amount of human training we did blocking these ads, google could absolutely solve this problem instantly. The ad creatives are nearly identical. We were seeing new ad accounts targeting our specific domain daily (ad account names like {sitename}339, {sitename}340, etc)

When we asked our reps, they dance around the question by saying they would "escalate to engineering" or some bs like that.

Google just makes far too much money to stop. My guess is that its >40% of AdX display revenue, based on the % of scam ads that come through ad manager.

Context: our site did ~$5m AdX revenue annually, mostly US audience. High CPM niche. This was ~7 years ago till 2 years ago when we sold the business, I would guess it's still happening based on ads I see browsing the internet.

collabs 4 hours ago||
My opinion is that someone somewhere is paying for those ads and Google needs to get positive identification of a human being for any ad. Google has a near monopoly so there is no reason Google can't force this requirement arbitrarily. Once you have positive identification, suspend them pending further investigation if they serve any dodgy ad. I will be genuinely surprised if Google makes any money off of these dodgy ads. How? Like how does this money flow? Where does it come from?

There has to be a way to enforce positive identification, right?

Google already does this for Google play developers. I can't use a US credit card to pay for the USD 25 fee for a student on Bangladesh for example because I understand the payment method is one of the signals they use to make sure the student developer is a real person.

Is this something Google won't do on its own without being forced to act?

vikarti 2 hours ago|
Potential issues: - There are some well-known ways around developer verification (peopl in some countries _need_ them for one reason or another so - they use non-local cards,etc) - it's very basic verification and people who pay for ads likely arleady do it (payment have to come from somewhere). - Proof of address is also spoofable and there are some situations were people making/providing fakes when they don't mean ill intent towards anybody else (example: Russia, some of ways to make non-Russian-only Visa/MC require making fake proof) but such methods could also be abused for doing actual harm. - ID verification sometimes complicated if a lot of countries are involved. Example: I'm not at all sure at least one person in Google actually knew what Abhazian passport is and how to verify it ?
stillpointlab 9 hours ago||
I don't think it is fair to pin this on Google - I get the worst ads on X. But something about how the X ad network works means that even when I report the ad, block the ad poster, etc. there is this army of alternate ad accounts that all show the same ad.

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.

akersten 9 hours ago||
Why are you subjecting yourself to that instead of downloading Firefox + uBlock origin?

See the headline of this article for Exhibit (I've actually run out of letters in the alphabet) why adblocking is a moral imperative.

stillpointlab 9 hours ago||
As much I love a good old "Why don't you just ..." response that terrifically misses the point - in this particular case I was watching YouTube through their Apple TV app.

Now, there may be another "why don't you just ..." or "well, actually ..." response you have queued up, maybe some ramblings about a pi hole, or some anti-Apple hate, or some other solutioneering. Go ahead, tell me.

But it is the structure of incentive that forces this. The YouTube creators that make the content do need to get paid. And Google offers an option: Youtube Premium. That give both me and the creator what we want and (for the time being) removes the ads.

So either one is rich in time (doing whatever "why don't you just ..." hoop you expect me to jump through) or rich in money.

phyzome 8 hours ago|||
Sounds like you've made a choice to watch ads. Which is fine, but then maybe don't complain about it.
stillpointlab 8 hours ago|||
That is wrong on both accounts. I have little choice other than to watch ads since the structure of incentive that creates a marketplace like YouTube forces it on me.

I think about libraries and how the world would be if instead of a free public resource, you had to watch ads before you were allowed to take out a book.

It is just the case that in this modern social media world, if you want your ideas to spread you have to put them onto social media. And if I want access to those ideas I have to consume them through social media. There is nothing about that environment that is my choice, it is the environment that I find myself in.

And I have few choices to get around it. I can twist up into a pretzel trying to block the onslaught with more "why don't you just..." advice. Or I could pay to make it go away. Or I could just go off-grid and forego access.

And when you look close at the options, it becomes clear that sovereignty of my own mind has a price. Freedom of mind is not free in this modern world, if it ever really was.

phyzome 7 hours ago||
You made the choice to use Apple TV, whatever that is. I just use... YouTube. In my browser. Do you not have a browser? It doesn't cost money.

You also have no obligation to watch ads for creators to get paid. They can also set up things like Patreon if they would like. The ads are very lucrative, and that's their choice. But you are free to make choices too, if you would like to.

BLKNSLVR 4 hours ago|||
They wanted a whinge, and not a solution. A position that I truly do not understand, but is not uncommon.
BLKNSLVR 4 hours ago||||
> The YouTube creators that make the content do need to get paid

Nope.

They may get paid, they may not. That's the risk they've chosen. They may also get their Google account banned with no recourse for something minor or even non-existent.

> So either one is rich in time (doing whatever "why don't you just ..." hoop you expect me to jump through) or rich in money.

That's what they want you to think, you've been watching too many ads.

worik 8 hours ago||||
> I was watching YouTube through their Apple TV app.

That is an active choice, not forced in any way.

> The YouTube creators that make the content do need to get paid.

There are better ways, and we would all be better off except for the small group of greedheads benefiting from the chaos

The ad supported internet is dying. Good riddance

BLKNSLVR 4 hours ago|||
I think it is fair to pin this on Google, Meta, X, and any other ad networks that seem to have no control over their own platforms.

They're like Dr. Frankenstein, creating a monster and then just letting it roam the countryside. But worse, because they profit (immensely) from the chaos their monster wreaks.

dpkirchner 3 hours ago||
Pin it on Google, Meta, X, etc, and also on the sites that display malware ads to clients. They're all culpable.
stefan_ 7 hours ago|||
X has been the most shameless, after all brand name advertisers left. Here is one state-level actor campaign that has been going on for months:

https://imgur.com/a/HZwfyNH

It's not advertising anything, it's just a straight up scam exploit site. It uses exclusively stolen or fake accounts. The links are shown as "amazon.de" or similar but of course do not go there, no doubt just a bug X haven't gotten around to fixing just yet.

This is on the kind of level where if we had actual law enforcement for tech companies, the next time some X executive lands in Europe they would be in cuffs.

hsuduebc2 9 hours ago|||
Somehow I would never assume that X would act "moral". Google on the other hands even few years back was generally acknowledged as a good actor which was once again corporate charade people would fall for. Including myself.
CamperBob2 5 hours ago||
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

You don't have to be rich to avoid getting those ads. You can make them go away for ~$15 a month. If you can't afford that, you have bigger problems in your life than YouTube ads, and your first step towards fixing them is to spend less time watching YouTube.

BLKNSLVR 4 hours ago||
Yeah, but that also says to Google that their methods are successful. That makes my skin crawl.
CamperBob2 3 hours ago||
(Shrug) The creators need to get paid one way or another. Do you want them to start running their own commercials, as if sponsored segments aren't bad enough?
BLKNSLVR 2 hours ago||
Would that be worse than what we've got now?
CamperBob2 35 minutes ago||
Yes, because I couldn't pay $15 to make those commercials go away.
leoc 7 hours ago||
As usual, "Google" here means the two individual human beings who together have a controlling interest in Google, Page and Brin. It may also mean some other people, but it certainly means them. To be clear, that's not to suggest that everything dubious about Google can be put on their shoulders. Some Google issues are genuinely hard to solve; some are deep enough in the weeds that they may plausibly never have heard of them or not have time for them. AdSense being a sewer doesn't seem to be one of those.
ricardobeat 7 hours ago||
There is a well known problem in the Netherlands where scammers will set up fake museum websites, like “vangoghtickets.co”. They don’t even collect the money - your card details are instantly stolen and used for some odd looking purchases in south east asia or something.

I’ve reported these multiple times. They always get to the top of search results via paid placement, and Google always responds to the reports saying they found nothing wrong with them, even when provided with detailed evidence of the fraud.

andynrkri 10 hours ago||
My father saw a similar ad and got worried. The ad said you need to update your pdf version immediately. He uninstalled the YouTube because he knew it was irregular and thought his phone was hacked.
LollipopYakuza 10 hours ago|
If everyone was as cautious as your father, Google would have no choice but to improve the quality of their service.
itopaloglu83 9 hours ago||
Or they would start accepting money for remotely installing apps, just like the bloatware most phones and computers come with.
ChaoStatiX 1 hour ago|
I believe Google already has systems in place to block malicious ads and is actively running them. In fact, according to last year's 'Ads Safety Report 2025,' Google blocked over 8.3 billion bad ads in a single year. Of course, despite these efforts, the sheer volume of ads being uploaded makes it practically impossible to catch every single one of them. Therefore, rather than simply criticizing the issue in a negative light, we should recognize and appreciate the platform's ongoing efforts to clean up its ecosystem.
More comments...