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

121–130 of 230 posts

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

#121

Post by asddubs »

missedthecue wrote: post #118
oliwarner wrote: post #79

Why is this allowed? I know Google will do anything for money, but why is Google allowed to signpost a link to gimp.org which actually takes you to g--imp.org (sanitised)? I mean, if nothing else, how do they not share the liability for damages done by the spyware they're literally promoting? For the businesses squatting on the names of more notable ones? AdWords goes too far.

It's not allowed. It'a a violation of Google advertiser policies.

I feel that what they meant was, why is this even possible to do

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

#122

Post by tpxl »

birken wrote: post #77

> dig +short gimp.monster 194.110.203.75 > whois 194.110.203.75 ... role: IT Resheniya LLC nic-hdl: ITR30-RIPE address: ul. Novoselov, d. 8A, of. 692 address: 193079 Saint Petersburg address: Russia abuse-mailbox: abuse@rentaserv.su ...

Rentaserv.su is a hosting company, there's probably dozens of websites on that IP.

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

#123

Post by Macha »

asddubs wrote: post #119
a1371 wrote: post #104

I 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…

they used to have a yellow background, then a blue button with a white "advertisement" text in it, and it just got more and more subtle over the years. Now it's two characters of text

On mobile, the text saying Ad is the same size and position as favicons for regular search results, too.

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

#124

Post by Nextgrid »

MereInterest wrote: post #113
j16sdiz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

It may be true, but why a judge or jury would accept it as justification is beyond me. "My business model requires me to break the law." is a condemnation of the business model, not a justification.

The problem is that the legal system is flawed in such a way that the wronged parties rarely have the time & resources needed to actually put the issue in front of a judge. If it actually does get in front of a judge (in reality it would get settled out of court if it actually gets anywhere close) I would indeed expect their argument to fall apart.

This is something that ideally the government (its consumer protection branches like the FTC) should be policing proactively, filing suits preemptively against systems that are trivially exploitable.

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

#125

Post by satellite2 »

a1371 wrote: post #104

I 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…

It's not enough. I used to always skip the ad of the canonical site I was looking for to avoid incurring them a cost when I knew what I was searching for.

But it's often no longer possible. The actual search reasult you want is the ad and the link is no longer duplicated in the organic search results.

So you have to click the ad.

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

#126

Post by orangecat »

ptato wrote: post #111
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…

Advertising is not meant to be educational, it's meant to make you aware the product exists. Of course you're don't have to trust what the company is saying, but now you know their product exists and what it does. If it was something you were looking for, you can now research it and ask for opinion.

Advertising is not meant to be educational, it's meant to make you aware the product exists.

That's maybe 10% of what advertising does. Everyone on the planet is well aware that Coke is a carbonated beverage.

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

#127

Post by nine_k »

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.

There is a whole genre related to this kind of dystopias, cyberpunk. Its predictions from 1980s and 1990s turn out to be increasingly true, sometimes in the grim parts, too.

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

#128

Post by dylan604 »

dist1ll wrote: post #89
plasticchris wrote: post #86

Earlier 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?

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

I don't think "move fast, break things" meant the law, did it?

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

#129

Post by itronitron »

satellite2 wrote: post #125
a1371 wrote: post #104

I 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…

It's not enough. I used to always skip the ad of the canonical site I was looking for to avoid incurring them a cost when I knew what I was searching for. But it's often no longer possible. The actual search reasult you want is the ad and the link is no longer duplicated in the organic search results. So you have to click the ad.

you also have the option to not use Google and use DuckDuckGo or Bing instead

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

#130

Post by itronitron »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #61
matheusmoreira wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out uBlock Origin is the best anti-malware software there is. For some reason friends and family just don't seem to get malware anymore after I installed it on their browsers.

As soon as you realize how much of Google's bottom line is scam and malware distribution, it becomes really hard to view the company as anything but crooks. Google's other big line of business is shaking down businesses for cash by selling the top result for someone's own brand name unless they're paid for protection.

I haven't used Google Search in over four years but it sounds like they have followed the SourceForge path based on your description.
Post reply on HN