11–20 of 249 posts
BTW: forbes can fuck off with their auto play videos shit. Even on mobile. Who really thinks this is a good strategy?!!?
Using browsers to download software should never have become the standard practice... Linux got it right with the built-in package repositories. Unfortunately Windows and Mac have never really adopted the super-easy "apt install this" style.
This has been happening for so long that it's hard to believe Microsoft is not aware of it.
Given the malware Google's ads also ship, which Googlers here on HN have tried to have removed only to return an hour later, suffice to say malicious ads are an industry pervasive problem, and the solution is to kill the online advertising market. Aggressively. In fact, when I tried to look for a specific class of malicious ads (looking for "mapquest") recently, DuckDuckGo was even as bad as Google, it was Bing who g…
Bing makes it clear when a site is promoted by prepending "ad" to the search result. Other search engines such as DuckDuckGo and Google do the same. It is near impossible for Bing to manually review every advert so perhaps it would be beneficial for search engines to provide a way for users to report rouge promoted links, similar to how YouTube allows you to report its sidebar ads.
> It is near impossible for Bing to manually review every advert Why? Are there hundreds of ad campaigns being created per second?
This has been happening for so long that it's hard to believe Microsoft is not aware of it.
Given the malware Google's ads also ship, which Googlers here on HN have tried to have removed only to return an hour later, suffice to say malicious ads are an industry pervasive problem, and the solution is to kill the online advertising market. Aggressively. In fact, when I tried to look for a specific class of malicious ads (looking for "mapquest") recently, DuckDuckGo was even as bad as Google, it was Bing who g…
I think that the sponsorship model many YouTubers use these days works really well, because there isn't any code involved that I have to run.
Bing makes it clear when a site is promoted by prepending "ad" to the search result. Other search engines such as DuckDuckGo and Google do the same. It is near impossible for Bing to manually review every advert so perhaps it would be beneficial for search engines to provide a way for users to report rouge promoted links, similar to how YouTube allows you to report its sidebar ads.
They very specifically do not make it clear, they (and I mean all of them) intend to make sponsored results look as identical as possible to organic results to improve the likelihood that you'll click them. They only have subtle markings showing that they're ads because if they didn't, such an abuse of trust would be ruinous to any search engine.
What's even worse here is that in the linked video, the Bing ad shows the domain as `google.com`, which is something you expect to be accurately represented in any listing, organic or paid. That's the sort of thing that should be ruinous to Bing.
The title of this article is deceptive clickbait.[1] The problem has nothing to do with the Edge browser, it has to do with search results returned by Bing, which happens to be Edge's default search engine. If you have a new Windows 10 PC and want to download Chrome, how else could you do it besides "using Microsoft Edge to download Chrome"? So "stop using Edge to download Chrome" is not useful advice. Better advice…
Which could be faked, as seen in the referenced tweet: https://twitter.com/GabrielLandau/status/1055300918101598208 Yes, they show the word "Ad", alongside the domain name "google.com" - except the user doesn't end up on "google.com".
Using browsers to download software should never have become the standard practice... Linux got it right with the built-in package repositories. Unfortunately Windows and Mac have never really adopted the super-easy "apt install this" style.
How would you know what "this" should be without using a browser?
2. You install "this" with your package manager
3. Even if the "this" installed wasn't the "this" you read about in your browser, it still came from your package manager repos, which you could consider safe, and you'll be able to uninstall it cleanly.
Then I look at the Windows Store and weep.
Using browsers to download software should never have become the standard practice... Linux got it right with the built-in package repositories. Unfortunately Windows and Mac have never really adopted the super-easy "apt install this" style.
How would you know what "this" should be without using a browser?