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

Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

blog.l0cal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#21

Post by zenspunk »

Should Google somehow run background checks on every advertiser to see if they're breaking some US law? (or other countries' laws?) What broken laws should justify removal?

Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many reports should warrant an investigation by Google?

Regardless, can Google remove these Adword listings without legal issues (i.e. without risking being sued)?

Getting these scammers off the front page of search would be relatively easy - it can be solved algorithmically. They're probably working on it now, with their anti-linkspam initiative.

But I don't see how Google could get them off Adwords without employing hundreds or thousands of people to review advertisers, but this would create more problems of greater magnitude than it would solve.

They could crowdsource it to narrow the (retrospective) review process, but this would create a secondary market of advertising, which I doubt Google wants, nor users would want to deal with.

I can't think of a way for Google to solve this problem without creating larger ones.

It's the responsibility of governments -- not internet advertising platforms -- to police copyright law.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#22

Post by jbk »

zenspunk wrote: post #21

Should Google somehow run background checks on every advertiser to see if they're breaking some US law? (or other countries' laws?) What broken laws should justify removal? Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many re…

No, but at least Google should take down those advertisers when they are reported to them.

See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2738238 as a comment, for example.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#23

Post by zenspunk »

jbk wrote: post #22
zenspunk wrote: post #21

Should Google somehow run background checks on every advertiser to see if they're breaking some US law? (or other countries' laws?) What broken laws should justify removal? Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many re…

No, but at least Google should take down those advertisers when they are reported to them. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2738238 as a comment, for example.

Edit: parent made a retrospective edit to add the link after I had made this post.

So again, I ask:

- is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report?

- does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser?

- or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued?

- which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal?

- how should they solve the potential problem of scammers flooding the report system?

Again, I don't think Google can solve this problem without creating larger ones. I don't think it's their job to police copyright.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#24

Post by numbsafari »

zenspunk wrote: post #21

Should Google somehow run background checks on every advertiser to see if they're breaking some US law? (or other countries' laws?) What broken laws should justify removal? Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many re…

Google wants to be a useful search engine that returns relevant results. If they are returning links to malware/spyware/adware in exchange for money rather than linking to legitimate results, don't you think that is not only unethical but borderline illegal?

If Google's product is US then they are effectively selling US to the malware/spyware/adware fiends.

Google absolutely has the responsibility to return relevant, meaningful and SAFE results to its users. They already try and do that in a lot of cases. It's just that, in this case, they are getting paid not to.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#25

Post by gaius »

jbk wrote: post #9

Disclaimer: VLC dev and VideoLAN chairman I think the worse part of all this mess is that Google refuses to act and stop those. This was requested quite a few time and Google told us to go away because we didn't own all the trademarks in the US (even though we still have copyright). Moreover, the safe-browsing initiative, used in Chrome 12, is a complete joke. Reporting one of those websites make the safe-browsing re…

Well, this is about misalignment of incentives. If you are a search user, you are not Google's customer. You are their product. They sell you to people who buy adwords - whoever they may be.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#26

Post by zenspunk »

numbsafari wrote: post #24
zenspunk wrote: post #21

Should Google somehow run background checks on every advertiser to see if they're breaking some US law? (or other countries' laws?) What broken laws should justify removal? Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many re…

Google wants to be a useful search engine that returns relevant results. If they are returning links to malware/spyware/adware in exchange for money rather than linking to legitimate results, don't you think that is not only unethical but borderline illegal? If Google's product is US then they are effectively selling US to the malware/spyware/adware fiends. Google absolutely has the responsibility to return relevant,…

Did you not read my post? I said they could easily (relatively) solve the issue of these guys turning up in search results.

The problem they can't solve, I argue, is to ensure that people violating copyright law (of some arbitrary country) can't advertise with Adwords.

Edit: Look, I can do retrospective edits too!

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#27

Post by jbk »

zenspunk wrote: post #23
jbk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but at least Google should take down those advertisers when they are reported to them. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2738238 as a comment, for example.

Edit: parent made a retrospective edit to add the link after I had made this post. So again, I ask: - is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report? - does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser? - or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued? - which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal? - h…

> is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report?

Yes. They get money from advertisement, they should check reports.

> does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser?

No. If Google ToS banishes copyright infrigement, they can remove advertisers without questionning.

> or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued?

Sued? This is inside Google system, respecting Google ToS. They have the right to banish accounts and have done repeatedly in the past.

> which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal?

CA, USA, of course.

> how should they solve the potential problem of scammers flooding the report system?

How do they solve spam on gmail?

> I don't think it's their job to police copyright.

I disagree on Adsense, but agree on Search. Making money from illegal activities is illegal in most (if not all ) countries.

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#28

Post by [deleted] »

gaius wrote: post #25
jbk wrote: post #9

Disclaimer: VLC dev and VideoLAN chairman I think the worse part of all this mess is that Google refuses to act and stop those. This was requested quite a few time and Google told us to go away because we didn't own all the trademarks in the US (even though we still have copyright). Moreover, the safe-browsing initiative, used in Chrome 12, is a complete joke. Reporting one of those websites make the safe-browsing re…

Well, this is about misalignment of incentives. If you are a search user, you are not Google's customer . You are their product . They sell you to people who buy adwords - whoever they may be.

[deleted]

Re: Companies that make money by distributing misleading versions of VLC

#29

Post by jbk »

zenspunk wrote: post #26
numbsafari wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google wants to be a useful search engine that returns relevant results. If they are returning links to malware/spyware/adware in exchange for money rather than linking to legitimate results, don't you think that is not only unethical but borderline illegal? If Google's product is US then they are effectively selling US to the malware/spyware/adware fiends. Google absolutely has the responsibility to return relevant,…

Did you not read my post? I said they could easily (relatively) solve the issue of these guys turning up in search results. The problem they can't solve, I argue, is to ensure that people violating copyright law (of some arbitrary country) can't advertise with Adwords. Edit: Look, I can do retrospective edits too!

We speak here about US law, not arbitrary country, because that where Google is based.

They can solve the problem of checking reports on US copyright violations with Adwords.

Post reply on HN