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

141–150 of 230 posts

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

#141

Post by MereInterest »

Nextgrid wrote: post #124
MereInterest wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 protectio…

Definitely agreed. I think it also stems from laws that define explicit and measurable harm as the only types of harm. For false advertising and fraud, it usually requires proving that they was financial harm done as the result of the false statements. Because creating an environment in which fraud is cheap and easy doesn't count as "harm". Because false advertising doesn't count as "harm" in itself, even as imposes the burden of scrutinizing all claims from previously trustworthy sources.

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

#142

Post by MereInterest »

kodah wrote: post #106
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?

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…

Which is also weird, because it is a far better reason for an individual than for a corporation. An individual is limited to their own time and expertise, whereas a corporation is only limited by their willingness to hire additional workers and expertise.

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

#143

Post by pixl97 »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #16
johndfsgdgdfg wrote: post #13

This is outrageous. We need to find a way to stop Google. Google invades our privacy. Google holds us hostages for more money. Now this? When is enough is enough?

As outrageous as a site having a leak or being hacked. As for what someone can do. It's simple. Don't use Google.

One of the big problems here is when you cut out the big tech abusers you find out how hollow the internet has become.

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

#144

Post by robocat »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #73
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…

I agree, but the fact that even if you hold the view that ads are beneficial to society, Google is still a bad actor and a net negative to all of us, is particularly noteworthy. We all pay for Google via folks paying ransoms and other scams, having to indirectly pay for high ad budgets every company has to pay off Google to avoid their own search result being squatted by a competitor, etc. There is no company on the…

> shut down Google (paraphrased)

But the incentives for advertising remain the same, so another similar competitor with similar evilness would emerge to replace them.

I don’t believe the problem is “Google is evil”.

I think the problem is that the incentives create evil, and there is little effective effort (that I have seen) to fix Google’s incentives through legislation or other means.

I worry that many other major companies we interact with are heading down the same path.

TVs are one canary warning us.

Another example: Apple seems to be getting keener on advertising revenue, and I’m not sure that opposing incentives (within Apple or by their customers) are strong enough to overcome the financial temptation. That temptation leads to eventual sin (to use a religious metaphor!) Apple already commits egregious harm through many kinds of “free” apps.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

kevincox wrote: post #20
captainmuon wrote: post #7

How is it even possible to spoof the shown URL?

It's just a setting in Google AdWords. The display URL and target URL are not related. You can also play tricks like a "tracking URL template" that is a URL that can be on another domain and receives the "target URL" as a parameter. It is expected to redirect to the correct URL, of course nothing enforces this other than a manual review. I can't believe that Google allows this but tracking is clearly more important t…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by BLKNSLVR »

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"

How can anyone argue against blocking ads when this argument is used literally in court as explanation for why they are unable to police the ads they're putting on their own platform?

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

#147

Post by Aerroon »

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.

Because if you tried to actually police this then everything in life would grind to a halt. It would be like expecting the government to deal with every single crime.

It's particularly problematic when a business is providing a platform for other entities to post a message. We don't hold the post office liable for transferring copyrighted/trademarked content, do we?

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

#148

Post by Aerroon »

pessimizer wrote: post #109
dbcurtis wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think politicians might even be willing to try to do that, but I doubt that regular people would be on board with that. This would most likely involve permitting a lot of things in society that we consider immoral right now (or at least objectionable to some extent).

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

#149

Post by sweetbitter »

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

Then your business is not actually scalable.

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

#150

Post by BLKNSLVR »

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 manipulative by it's very nature. Being made aware that it exists is manipulative in a somewhat forgivable way, but often the words and message are intended to motivate people with various forms of emotional manipulation.

Advertising is pretty gross.

And maybe that wasn't always the case, and maybe it's also using advertising in place of another word, but that's where it's ended up in my understanding of the world.

Post reply on HN