Live data from Hacker News

YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

old.reddit.com

131–140 of 375 posts

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

#131

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

> They're all like that.

Yep. I stopped bothering to report obvious scams on Facebook as any response I got was they didn't breach any standards (for others I got no response at all), yet I've had a comment removed because calling someone a numbskull was unduly rude/aggressive/whatever (I forget the exact complaint given).

For a while I added comments details why it was so obvious the scam posts were scams, but this has little effect as my comment would be quickly drowned out by the many “I got mine OK!” and “thanks!” comments that are presumably placed by compromised accounts. It also backfires: commenting, even to point out the scammyness, is interaction – that interaction tells the recommendation algorithms that I might want to see more of that sort of thing or worse that my friends/family would also.

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

#133

As it turns out there is a whole category in YouTubes ad system for Get-Rich-Quick schemes, as detailed out in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkhGJUTW3ag&t=1031s (timestamped at the relevant time). Just today I saw my elderly father click on a YouTube ad link for a crypto scam copying Swedish televisions web layout he was reading it and I saw it at the corner of my eye. He has adblock installed, he disabl…

> What is he supposed to do, create a google account and get premium instead? Yes? I've mostly quit watching YouTube (and really a lot of media) because the shear amount of it and the number of predatory dark patterns have just gotten to be too much for me (it's possible that I'm overly sensitive in some way). But if it's important to him, then maybe it's worth paying some money for the experience. Personally I'm try…

So I should just give up, have a talk about media habits with my parents and if they don't want to change, just hand YouTube the money? You freely admit that it is designed to be this bad and by giving them money actually just rewards their shitty behavior. I gave an example of a video showing how creators on YouTube can select which ads to show. Get-Rich-Quick is a category, YouTube could just take the decision to not carry those ads anymore and enforce violations as harshly as copyright strikes.

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

#135
Re. ad blockers on youtube...

I will vote with my wallet and never give Google a cent, I feel gross enough already even just using any service owned by them. They are typical giant corporation who corrupt everything they touch. I reckon for every hour of valuable software work that makes its way to the public, 50 hours of bullshit managerial "work" is done by a sucession of gobshites with increasingly inflated salaries.

What actual value do they add? All the features and innovations they have made since acquiring youtube have been uniformly terrible, the best example is their pathetic attempt to ape tiktok with youtube shorts, so now they have two totally different systems awkwardly smooshed together on the same platform. They also, in classic Google fashion just randomly change the UI or randomly remove extremely useful publishing features for no reason on a weekly basis. They've pushed more and more ads. They've moderated and used the suggested videos features to encourage content farm garbage and punish actually good original content.

The real value of youtube is the amazing content creators who make world beating content for free. The actually good ones are mostly demonetized by youtube and either make zero money or only make money from Patreon supporters. So the actual value of youtube is the content creators, and also the audience who go there to watch. Youtube has been around for a long time and is basically the place to upload longer videos. Google gained control of this value by buying youtube and since then they have sat on this communally created value and simply engaged in rent seeking behaviour.

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

#136
I've noticed a huge uptick in the most obvious scams, when using my work PC (no ad-block!).

Typical deepfakes of celebrities, where they've stolen some clip, and get the person to promote some crypto scam. It's laughable. Imagine being 80, and seeing Warren Buffet or Bill Gates on youtube promoting some random crypto brokerage, saying that you can create generational wealth TODAY!

Since it's on youtube, it must be legit, right?

EDIT: I believe one way to solve this, is by heavy handed regulation where you make the websites (YouTube, etc.) financially liable for scams they are facilitating through ads etc.

Right now there seems to be zero incentives to removing this kind of stuff.

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

#137
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about growth at different stages, but the reason it took off initially is that Flash added video capabilities and YouTube was built around that ubiquitous plugin. Before that, you needed a video player installed on your computer that then either loaded in-browser or played videos after download. You often needed multiple players installed as none supported every video format.

This is a bit like saying car use grew because of differentials. Cars use differentials but the reason car use grew isn't the differential. If it wasn't the differential it would be some other mechanism that does the same thing. Don't attribute user interest (which is what made YouTube grow) to the technical aspects of the site. That is almost never the case.

Back in the day you if you wanted to 'watch internet videos' then you needed a video player, you needed codecs, you needed to download the videos, you needed to find the videos

If you wanted to share videos online, good luck? You needed somewhere you could upload them and a lot of forums had file size limits, so sometimes you just spread/discovered them via p2p services. For the non-technical person, there were a few places you could submit videos to or browse 'funny internet videos', but most video sites were an individual or community's curated collection

Youtube bundled all of that up as "a video repository and search engine that provides a streaming player which is already supported by your browser", and (in the US anyway) that moment coincided with: (a) wide-spread broadband access and (b) digital cameras becoming accessible to consumers

So in that context, I think it might be a bit like saying "interest in reading increased after book printing technology made libraries comparatively inexpensive"

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

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wou…

> You'd think that creators making people want to use the site would be important

YouTube's audience size and advertising metrics have long since gone through the point where individual creators or groups of them matter little. If a creator walks off the platform there are more who will fill the place, in search of potential monetisation, so youtube will still have somewhere to hang adverts off. An advertiser leaving is harder to replace than a content provider.

eBay has a similar flip some years ago: they realised that there was more value caring for buyers needs than sellers: sellers swarm in attracted by the number of buyers and are difficult to put off for long as there are often few other options, buyers need to feel safe to hand around.

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

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically I'm supposed to pay protection money? Yeah, I don't give into extortion...

You can see it as extortion or... Paying for a product instead of being the product. Huge quality of life improvement. How is it different from paying for Netflix and similar?

Because YouTube takes money deliberately from criminals an ad supported version of Netflix would hardly have Get-Rich-Quick schemes advertised which you need to pay to avoid. Make no mistake, I've seen criminal scammer ads on YouTube.

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

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is he supposed to do, create a google account and get premium instead? Yes? I've mostly quit watching YouTube (and really a lot of media) because the shear amount of it and the number of predatory dark patterns have just gotten to be too much for me (it's possible that I'm overly sensitive in some way). But if it's important to him, then maybe it's worth paying some money for the experience. Personally I'm try…

So I should just give up, have a talk about media habits with my parents and if they don't want to change, just hand YouTube the money? You freely admit that it is designed to be this bad and by giving them money actually just rewards their shitty behavior. I gave an example of a video showing how creators on YouTube can select which ads to show. Get-Rich-Quick is a category, YouTube could just take the decision to n…

Wanted to point out that “Just take the decision to not carry those ads” isn’t as easy when you’re at YT scale. Not excusing them but I think we all understand the challenges of content moderation at scale for organic content — now amplify that for paid content where the incentives get even thornier.

Yes YT should invest more in review and policy work — but it’s a forever expanding cost with no silver bullet.

I appreciate there’s a least a price and option for ads-free.

Post reply on HN