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

Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#71

Post by dsl »

javajosh wrote: post #43
tantalor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you filter the paid speech then it follows you should also filter out the actual art, cinema, theater, etc. it paid for. Now you are left with what?

I have to be honest, I'm not sure how to respond. The mean part of me wants to call you out for being stupid, the angry part for using a strawman, the compassionate part wants to dig in and fix your misunderstanding, the wise part wants to smile, shake my head, and ignore it. So, as usual, I go with the meta part of me and just describe the other parts and I'll let you pick.

You made absolutely no counter argument, and used way too many words to express your core point: "I'm a jerk."

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#72

Post by dsl »

bootlooped wrote: post #68
annoyingnoob wrote: post #8

With verification, will Google be culpable the next time one of my users is redirected to a tech support scam from a Google ad? At least twice a year at my business users are redirected to tech support scams from Google Search ads. Its always a similar story, "I searched for Amazon and clicked the first link".

If somebody with a blue check mark on Twitter commits a crime, is Twitter responsible?

No, because apparently it's in the public interest that it be seen. See https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-we-cant-block-trump-be...

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#73

Post by annoyingnoob »

toast0 wrote: post #59
annoyingnoob wrote: post #8

With verification, will Google be culpable the next time one of my users is redirected to a tech support scam from a Google ad? At least twice a year at my business users are redirected to tech support scams from Google Search ads. Its always a similar story, "I searched for Amazon and clicked the first link".

Verifying the (corporate) identity of the advertisers, doesn't affect their responsibility for content (or lack thereof), but it might mean you could sue the advertiser without first needing to get the information on the advertiser from Google.

Good to know that I'll be able to sue a corporation from Antigua that was setup by a shady foreign law firm. I'm sure that will go well and be a good use of my resources.

This is all a veil to try and hide the fact that Google wants ads to blend in better with results. Every couple of years Google makes it harder to distinguish ads from content. https://searchengineland.com/search-ad-labeling-history-goog...

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#74

Post by [deleted] »

1f60c wrote: post #28
chatmasta wrote: post #27

For those interested, Facebook already does something similar, and also has an "Ad Library" [0] where you can monitor ads related to "social issues, elections or politics." It's pretty interesting, worth checking it out. [0] https://www.facebook.com/ads/library

Google also has a website similar to Facebook's Ad Library: https://transparencyreport.google.com/political-ads/region/U...

[deleted]

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#75

Post by fires10 »

harikb wrote: post #32
kpmcc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Education is certainly one part, but we could also shift business models away from advertising. Ads are a cancer on content and attention, and the fact that so much of the economy is centered around them is mind boggling.

Banning advertising doesn’t make this problem go away unless you can also enforce it worldwide. If Google went away, you will have Baidu or Yandex pick up the business. Are we in a position to regulate them too? Remember that ads existed before internet. They also had the same fundamental problems. Only those days one had to be rich to muck with society

Is this a case of perfect being the enemy of good?

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#76

Post by summerlight »

digitalengineer wrote: post #4

>This change will make it easier for people to understand who the advertiser is behind the ads they see Call me skeptical, but won't it just lead to shell companies?

At least, people maybe able to know the group associated to the ads suspiciously tries to hide their identity. Not perfect, but still an improved situation.

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#77

Post by dang »

dsl wrote: post #71
javajosh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to be honest, I'm not sure how to respond. The mean part of me wants to call you out for being stupid, the angry part for using a strawman, the compassionate part wants to dig in and fix your misunderstanding, the wise part wants to smile, shake my head, and ignore it. So, as usual, I go with the meta part of me and just describe the other parts and I'll let you pick.

You made absolutely no counter argument, and used way too many words to express your core point: "I'm a jerk."

Whoa, even when a comment is bad, please don't respond with a worse one. That just takes the thread further in the wrong direction. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I don't read the GP comment as being a jerk so much as trying to at least avoid the most unproductive kinds of argument. Maybe it was a doomed experiment.

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#78

Post by dang »

javajosh wrote: post #43
tantalor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you filter the paid speech then it follows you should also filter out the actual art, cinema, theater, etc. it paid for. Now you are left with what?

I have to be honest, I'm not sure how to respond. The mean part of me wants to call you out for being stupid, the angry part for using a strawman, the compassionate part wants to dig in and fix your misunderstanding, the wise part wants to smile, shake my head, and ignore it. So, as usual, I go with the meta part of me and just describe the other parts and I'll let you pick.

The problem with this is that you've ruled out the wise part by posting it.

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#79

Post by cypherpunk-inst »

Very bad, anti-privacy, anti-anonymity development.

As governments around the world get increasingly totalitarian and everything gets regulated to death or outright illegal, the timing for Google to ban necessarily anonymous individuals, organizations and businesses couldn't be worse!

Re: Increasing transparency through advertiser identity verification

#80

Post by Nasrudith »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #55
tantalor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you filter the paid speech then it follows you should also filter out the actual art, cinema, theater, etc. it paid for. Now you are left with what?

People actually cook lunch for each other all the time without making a sales pitch, this idea that nothing happens if Google isn't cutting checks is an extremely dim view of humanity.

It isn't cynical but one which understands the value of specialization and ability to provide. If people cannot be supported doing X then doing better at it is limited.

Said paid approach also has implicit patronage as wealth reserves the priveledge to devote a large ammount of resources including time and not get paid for it while monopolizing the prestiege and related benefits of it.

Post reply on HN