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

Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 230 posts

Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

#81

Post by cuttysnark »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #46
hddqsb wrote: post #34

EDIT: There is definitely a mismatch between the display URL and the landing page URL. It's not clear to me how that can happen; for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx-gl6K2zQw shows that only the display path can be edited (not the domain), consistently with the wording on https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2616010 and https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2375287 . On the other hand, https:…

I can't get the ad to show up for me, but maybe GIMP has an open redirect on their website and the malvertiser is taking advantage of that?

I had to search for "gimp.org" to get the ad to be the first result; just searching "gimp" doesn't return the ad.

The scam ad says "gimp.org" but if you follow it, the landing page is hosted at gimp.monster. It's a clone of the proper gimp.org with a the download instead pointing to who-knows-what .exe on Dropbox.

WHOIS gimp.monster has WHOIS-guard, but the Icelandic "privacy" address turns up a bunch of Reddit links about scam sites. Namecheap is the common thread, but that's hardly a lead.

Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

#82

Post by henrydark »

dist1ll wrote: post #74
hedora wrote: post #64

In this particular case, I suspect a trademark complaint against Google would make sense. Google misrepresented the ad as the product of the Gimp project, and were paid as a result. They usually use an "obeying the law would not scale" type argument in court, but that would clearly be bullshit in this case. They have a business relationship with the ad buyer, and should have verified their affiliation with gimp.org.…

> obeying the law would not scale I don't know why, but that sentence terrifies me. It's like the silicon valley version of a dystopia.

Some laws were put into place before the current internet scale was imagined and would probably not be made today

Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

#83

Post by iamacyborg »

agluszak wrote: post #80
matheusmoreira wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if ads were 100% legit verified links, they would still be scams. Advertising is inherently untrustworthy. Why do people trust anything a corporation says about their own products? In the best case scenario, they're highlighting the pros and omitting the cons. Usually they're just straight up lying. I want real opinions written by real people with no conflict of interest. People who are't getting paid by the cor…

Why is this getting downvoted?

Because it’s nonsense

Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

#85

Post by harvey9 »

henrydark wrote: post #82
dist1ll wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> obeying the law would not scale I don't know why, but that sentence terrifies me. It's like the silicon valley version of a dystopia.

Some laws were put into place before the current internet scale was imagined and would probably not be made today

That's still the exact same dystopian take: complying with the law is too hard for Google so the law should change to the detriment of smaller entities.

Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

#86

Post by plasticchris »

henrydark wrote: post #82
dist1ll wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> obeying the law would not scale I don't know why, but that sentence terrifies me. It's like the silicon valley version of a dystopia.

Some laws were put into place before the current internet scale was imagined and would probably not be made today

So it’s a valid defense to say complying with the law is hard, that’s why I didn’t?

Shouldn’t the right course be to change the law before taking such actions?

Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

#87

Post by bogeholm »

hedora wrote: post #64

In this particular case, I suspect a trademark complaint against Google would make sense. Google misrepresented the ad as the product of the Gimp project, and were paid as a result. They usually use an "obeying the law would not scale" type argument in court, but that would clearly be bullshit in this case. They have a business relationship with the ad buyer, and should have verified their affiliation with gimp.org.…

> “obeying the law would not scale”

I’d love to see them trying that one out in an EU courtroom

Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

#88

Post by dbcurtis »

plasticchris wrote: post #86
henrydark wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some laws were put into place before the current internet scale was imagined and would probably not be made today

So it’s a valid defense to say complying with the law is hard, that’s why I didn’t? Shouldn’t the right course be to change the law before taking such actions?

Indeed. Saying: “Obeying the law doesn’t scale.” is an admission of guilt with pre-meditated intent to break the law. I keep hoping the courts will drive that point home at some point.

Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

#89

Post by dist1ll »

plasticchris wrote: post #86
henrydark wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some laws were put into place before the current internet scale was imagined and would probably not be made today

So it’s a valid defense to say complying with the law is hard, that’s why I didn’t? Shouldn’t the right course be to change the law before taking such actions?

Waiting for the law to change doesn't scale. Gotta be an asynchronous call. Just epoll the legislators.

Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org

#90

Post by juunpp »

plasticchris wrote: post #86
henrydark wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some laws were put into place before the current internet scale was imagined and would probably not be made today

So it’s a valid defense to say complying with the law is hard, that’s why I didn’t? Shouldn’t the right course be to change the law before taking such actions?

Of course that's not a valid defense.
Post reply on HN