Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No More Deceptive Download Buttons

googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 263 posts

Re: No More Deceptive Download Buttons

#181

Post by dingdingdang »

dheera wrote: post #148

This "Google Safe Browsing" initiative seriously worries me. It's effectively some unknown, mysterious, un-contactable set of AI algorithms/people/who knows what controlling the internet because Google owns everyone's browser. One of my websites got tagged as "Dangerous" and having "harmful programs" despite having nothing of the sort. My guess is a silly hiccup of their neural network algorithms. And I have absolute…

Yes, there's good reason why I'm posting this from https://www.palemoon.org/ which is Firefox without the politics - Chrome is too intrusive and non-transparent about its intrusion to boot.

Re: No More Deceptive Download Buttons

#182

Post by [deleted] »

kbenson wrote: post #178
whyleyc wrote: post #9

This is a joke right ? We run Adsense display ads on our site and have to spend significant time every day reviewing and blocking new ads which try to use these deceptive practices. Since Google clearly has the tech to detect this they should be implementing it at source on the advertisers (malvertisers). Instead they are pushing this down to the publishers and hitting them with penalties. It's a clever ploy in some…

Well, it's a way for Google to throw their weight around to multiple effects. First, it's positively perceived and accepted by end users, which is good for Google and end-users. Second, it punishes ad networks that don't spend the time to vet what types of adds are allowed. As an end-user, I'm in favor of this. Third, it boosts ad networks that do spend time vetting ads to prevent malicious ones. Presumably Google, a…

[deleted]

Re: No More Deceptive Download Buttons

#184

Post by Avshalom »

kbenson wrote: post #178
whyleyc wrote: post #9

This is a joke right ? We run Adsense display ads on our site and have to spend significant time every day reviewing and blocking new ads which try to use these deceptive practices. Since Google clearly has the tech to detect this they should be implementing it at source on the advertisers (malvertisers). Instead they are pushing this down to the publishers and hitting them with penalties. It's a clever ploy in some…

Well, it's a way for Google to throw their weight around to multiple effects. First, it's positively perceived and accepted by end users, which is good for Google and end-users. Second, it punishes ad networks that don't spend the time to vet what types of adds are allowed. As an end-user, I'm in favor of this. Third, it boosts ad networks that do spend time vetting ads to prevent malicious ones. Presumably Google, a…

>>Second, it punishes ad networks that don't spend the time to vet what types of adds are allowed. As an end-user, I'm in favor of this.

It punishes the sites using those ad networks directly, the networks themselves are indirectly punished.

Re: No More Deceptive Download Buttons

#185

Post by Pharaoh2 »

oliwarner wrote: post #37
Pharaoh2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't charge for ads, it charges for impressions. If you user doesn't seem it, google doesn't get paid. It also seems like a very different tech than trying to determine what an ad script will actually show a user. So it's not easy as if they can do A they can do B. Still doesn't excuse the fact that they should be doing their best to block those kind of ads in their ad network.

FWIW, "impression" means "request". Who knows what the user saw. Google AdSense is pay-per-click (or some algorithm, based on clicks against and the subject matter's value). In the context of adware rubbish, we are probably talking about AdSense. So no, Google doesn't pay per impression. DoubleClick (part of Google for some time) may still offer an impression-based product. My experience of them a few years ago was t…

Are you talking about google paying the website for each click/impression or are you talking about advertisers paying google for each click/impression. Both are termed under impressions (CPM or PPM). And in both cases google loses money in rolling out this feature.

Re: No More Deceptive Download Buttons

#186

Post by gergles »

RansomTime wrote: post #34
cabirum wrote: post #18

Google should detect and block the buttons, not display full-screen warnings. What next? "This site contains controversial views"? Or "Politically incorrect website ahead"?

Google can't block elements on sites it does not control. Warning users of phishing and warning users of speech that it finds objectionable are 2 different things entirely.

It can in the browser they control...

Re: No More Deceptive Download Buttons

#187

Post by ryanlol »

crdoconnor wrote: post #175
ryanlol wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with most things in this world, you could sue them.

They'd invoke the first amendment. It would be pretty open and shut.

I'm not sure if you know what the "first amendment" is. I'll tell you what it isn't, it's not a magical trump card that lets you say whatever you want.

Re: No More Deceptive Download Buttons

#188

Post by Animats »

whyleyc wrote: post #9

This is a joke right ? We run Adsense display ads on our site and have to spend significant time every day reviewing and blocking new ads which try to use these deceptive practices. Since Google clearly has the tech to detect this they should be implementing it at source on the advertisers (malvertisers). Instead they are pushing this down to the publishers and hitting them with penalties. It's a clever ploy in some…

I used to have a Firefox add-on which rated the sites linked to in Google ads.[1] I could have deleted the ads, but didn't. Should I bring that back?

It was amusing to run that. Ad quality was much better on some sites than others. Ads on Business Week pages were generally legitimate. Ads on entertainment sites were awful.

Totally deleting ads seems to have won out over merely thinning them out.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adrater/

Re: No More Deceptive Download Buttons

#189

Post by kuschku »

Karunamon wrote: post #99
joosters wrote: post #67

So safe browsing is now blocking pages where the adverts are "often not distinguishable from the rest of the page"? IMO that covers all of Google's search result pages. Most users don't seem to realise that the top results are paid advertising...

Here's a google SERP for "insurance": http://imgur.com/VUqwyPq Are you saying the bright "ad" lozenge next to the paid results isn't explicit enough? And anyways, users don't go out of their way to avoid clicking on ads unless the ads are utter crap. Google's whole business is to make the ads relevant to the search and the user, so who's to say the ad isn't actually a relevant result?

This is what it should look like (and used to): http://i.imgur.com/jdOGdTI.png

Re: No More Deceptive Download Buttons

#190

Post by kbenson »

Avshalom wrote: post #184
kbenson wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's a way for Google to throw their weight around to multiple effects. First, it's positively perceived and accepted by end users, which is good for Google and end-users. Second, it punishes ad networks that don't spend the time to vet what types of adds are allowed. As an end-user, I'm in favor of this. Third, it boosts ad networks that do spend time vetting ads to prevent malicious ones. Presumably Google, a…

>>Second, it punishes ad networks that don't spend the time to vet what types of adds are allowed. As an end-user, I'm in favor of this. It punishes the sites using those ad networks directly, the networks themselves are indirectly punished.

Well, it punished them both. An ad network that can't display it's ads in places it could before is a form of direct punishment. Forcing sites for choosing ad networks that don't vet their ads well is an additional indirect punishment as well, as it may encourage those sites to choose a more discerning ad network.

On one hand it's unfortunate that the site is being punished, on the other hand maybe they deserve some responsibility for not being more selective. I'm not sure.

Post reply on HN