Does anyone have a copy of the exe?
Would love to poke it for research.
Edit: Here be dragons. Found a source: https://old.reddit.com/r/GIMP/comments/ygbr4o/dangerous_goog...
Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
101–110 of 230 posts
Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
#102Earlier 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
Your business doesn't have an inherent right to scale
Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
#103In 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.…
> Also, a simple string match on the URL would expose the attempted fraud on Google's end.
I feel like your general argument is proving too much: Google clearly indicated this is an Ad, and you couldn’t reasonably hold Google or any other publisher of ads responsible for every claim made in every ad. However, I agree that the domain part is troubling, and even seems like a potentially misleading representation by Google — I’m surprised you’re able to set this arbitrarily. However, as discussed in a thread below, maybe you can’t and this is exploiting an open redirect in gimp.org? I think some details would be needed before you can jump to assigning blame so quickly.
Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
#104I think people are missing the actual issue here. Google used to have a clear distinction between what's an ad and what is organic.
In these screenshots you have to pay good attention to see the top result is an ad.
To keep their conversion numbers up they had to constantly reduce the difference between the ads and everything else. The fact that they can do this and we are so used to it that we don't first identify that as the culprit is quite interesting.
I have ran a few Google ads in the recent years and the people who come through them, some of them, clearly have no idea that they have clicked on an ad. This might be good for business but I think it does more harm overall.
Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
#105Earlier 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?
A large chunk of this websites user-base is working for ad companies like Google or Facebook. Another large chunk earns money from putting those ads on their apps.
Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
#106Earlier 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?
It's absolute BS. If a citizen were to come into a court and were to express the quantity of state and federal laws, those which compete with each other, and beg the court forgiveness based on, "There's so many laws I can't possibly be made to keep track of them not to mention the laws that are no longer actively exercised in courts" they'd laugh at you.
A corporation like Google does it and the court agrees. Corporations are not people in the worst way possible.
Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
#107In 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.
> I don't know why, but that sentence terrifies me. It's like the silicon valley version of a dystopia.
because it is true.
We have seen the same pattern in copyright infringement handling, spam or fake news control, user support...
Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
#108I think people are missing the actual issue here. Google used to have a clear distinction between what's an ad and what is organic. In these screenshots you have to pay good attention to see the top result is an ad. To keep their conversion numbers up they had to constantly reduce the difference between the ads and everything else. The fact that they can do this and we are so used to it that we don't first identify t…
I see people do that all the time - inadvertently click an ad because it's one of the first few results that pop up. Not only that, the number of ads shown before the real result has increased too! Just the other day, my boss did a Google search for a common product and was shown at least FIVE ads before the first real result and had to scroll to see that result. I remember the days when you would see one or two ads and the real result as the first thing you saw after a search, not seeing only ads until you scroll down.
Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you lead with the big ask, you frame the entire conversation around it. One should always start one's argument with question-begging, and disqualify people who don't accept the question begging as not serious about having a discussion.
"The laws are impossible to follow at scale. How do we fix that."
Or as a thinktank feeds it to a speechwriter to a politician: "Our antiquated laws have failed to keep up with the speed of technological development, and are now becoming an active handicap on progress. We need a set of laws that are as forward-thinking as our best selves hope to be, and a set of legislators that are responsive to the energy and creativity of the young while respecting the intelligence and hard-earned wisdom of the old."
Re: Google Ad Disguising Itself as www.gimp.org
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It's absolute BS. If a citizen were to come into a court and were to express the quantity of state and federal laws, those which compete with each other, and beg the court forgiveness based on, "There's so many laws I can't possibly be made to keep track of them not to mention the laws that are no longer actively exercised in courts" they'd laugh at you. A corporation like Google does it and the court agrees. Corpora…
it depends on your lawyer and on your face/outfit really