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

YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 375 posts

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#71

Post by ForkMeOnTinder »

passwordoops wrote: post #5

They're all like that. A whole back I reported an obvious real estate scam using Wayne Gretzky and some Blue Jays player (I'm in Canada). The reply was it didn't break any policy. When ads are the primary source of revenue, there's zero incentive to police the platform

It's even worse: the incentive is to police the creators, not the advertisers. Youtube will bend over backwards for advertisers whose "brand safety" team doesn't want their product to appear next to a swear word, and demonetize/strike/etc those creators. But the ad content itself isn't policed nearly as relentlessly.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#72

Post by Takennickname »

bluGill wrote: post #35
passwordoops wrote: post #5

They're all like that. A whole back I reported an obvious real estate scam using Wayne Gretzky and some Blue Jays player (I'm in Canada). The reply was it didn't break any policy. When ads are the primary source of revenue, there's zero incentive to police the platform

There is incentive, but they don't realize it. I know that online ads are often enough scams, so I won't buy anything from those ads. I do have to take effort to ensure that they don't effect me anyway (hint from basic psychology: they do, but I can make that effect less). If they did some work to ensure ads were not scams - I've seen ads for a number of interesting things that I intentionally did not buy because odd…

You are almost irrelevant to the conversation. The scammers only need 100 people to believe them from the potentially millions of people who view their ad to make it profitable.

You are not grasping the scale of the matter.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#74

Post by vannevar »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #28
passwordoops wrote: post #5

They're all like that. A whole back I reported an obvious real estate scam using Wayne Gretzky and some Blue Jays player (I'm in Canada). The reply was it didn't break any policy. When ads are the primary source of revenue, there's zero incentive to police the platform

> (I'm in Canada) The reply was it didn't break any policy. When ads are the primary source of revenue, there's zero incentive to police the platform TL;DR: If you're a major on-line ad distributor like Google/Meta, and broadcast malicious ads to consumers, then you should be liable for them according to local laws just how TV and radio broadcasters are liable for the same thing. Long argument: Sure those ads don't b…

If you're a major on-line ad distributor like Google/Meta, and broadcast malicious ads to consumers...

It's actually worse than that. If they were neutrally broadcasting, they'd at least have the argument that they were conceptually just a common carrier providing a neutral conduit between advertisers and consumers. But they are actively selecting which ads to present to which consumers---with respect to scam ads, they are preferentially sending scams to the people they believe are most likely to fall for them, and profiting as a result. They are not neutral conduits, but active participants in the underlying fraud.

Note that Section 230 only means they are not treated as a publisher or speaker of the fraudulent offer. That does not mean that they could not be held liable for an independent act in furtherance of the fraud, such as identifying vulnerable targets in collusion with the scammers and preferentially presenting the fraud to those targets.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#76

Post by bArray »

bluGill wrote: post #42
bratwurst3000 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a good question, does someone know what the percentage of big advertiser revenue to little advertiser revenue is with google services? Big advertiser beeing a top company like Coca Cola.

Does big Cola advertise on youtube? I haven't seen their ads at all (but since I don't drink soda maybe their profiles worked and coke isn't wasting adds on me?). Most of the big advertising plays elsewhere don't seem to be on youtube.

Not sure about Coca Cola specifically, but we are talking more generally about well-known big advertisers.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#77

Post by ivanbakel »

Takennickname wrote: post #72
bluGill wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is incentive, but they don't realize it. I know that online ads are often enough scams, so I won't buy anything from those ads. I do have to take effort to ensure that they don't effect me anyway (hint from basic psychology: they do, but I can make that effect less). If they did some work to ensure ads were not scams - I've seen ads for a number of interesting things that I intentionally did not buy because odd…

You are almost irrelevant to the conversation. The scammers only need 100 people to believe them from the potentially millions of people who view their ad to make it profitable. You are not grasping the scale of the matter.

You're missing the GP's point. They're claiming that scam ads pollute the ad marketplace and drive away engagement. Why click on an ad, or even pay attention to it, if there's a good chance it's a scam? And why would advertisers pay for ads if consumers are not engaging with them?

Thus, Google has an incentive to keep the ad space free of scams - it makes Google users more valuable to advertisers.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#78

Post by TremendousJudge »

Takennickname wrote: post #72
bluGill wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is incentive, but they don't realize it. I know that online ads are often enough scams, so I won't buy anything from those ads. I do have to take effort to ensure that they don't effect me anyway (hint from basic psychology: they do, but I can make that effect less). If they did some work to ensure ads were not scams - I've seen ads for a number of interesting things that I intentionally did not buy because odd…

You are almost irrelevant to the conversation. The scammers only need 100 people to believe them from the potentially millions of people who view their ad to make it profitable. You are not grasping the scale of the matter.

GPs argument is the opposite of this: it's not about the scammers, but about the legit brands. The same way Pepsi doesn't want to get their ads shown over somebody discussing STDs or something of the sort, they probably also don't want to get their ads shown next to scams, since it makes the product kinda seem like a scam by association.

Re: YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

#79

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

ForkMeOnTinder wrote: post #71
passwordoops wrote: post #5

They're all like that. A whole back I reported an obvious real estate scam using Wayne Gretzky and some Blue Jays player (I'm in Canada). The reply was it didn't break any policy. When ads are the primary source of revenue, there's zero incentive to police the platform

It's even worse: the incentive is to police the creators, not the advertisers. Youtube will bend over backwards for advertisers whose "brand safety" team doesn't want their product to appear next to a swear word, and demonetize/strike/etc those creators. But the ad content itself isn't policed nearly as relentlessly.

You'd think that creators making people want to use the site would be important, but unfortunately YouTube is a monopoly and is addictive, so content is more or less fungible from Google's perspective. If you aren't viewing ads on creator A's content, you'll probably be viewing them on creator B's content instead. It's not like other streaming services where there is real competition and losing particular content would make people go to competitors.
Post reply on HN