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

Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

atomic14.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 426 posts

Re: Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

#51

Post by walrus01 »

CqtGLRGcukpy wrote: post #2

I have two guesses why Google does this: 1) Google wants the most money, so they don't care to let dodgy ads thru. 2) There are more ads going out then can be reviewed, so they would rather have people report them, then they automatically reject the report until enough people report it, then an actual person may review it. As to why Google doesn't use AI to review them? Google would rather use the AI in a way that ma…

> 2) There are more ads going out then can be reviewed

The "more than can be reviewed" might have been a logical conclusion in a purely human based workflow, even if you have the lowest cost per head click workers in like, an external contractor call centre type environment in Bangladesh.

As the author points out, the ordinary consumer class version of publicly available Gemini very accurately classifies the ad as malicious. I really doubt that there are THAT MANY unique new ads being submitted per day that they can't afford the compute to run them through a similar classifier.

Re: Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

#52

Post by vintermann »

sippingabonedry wrote: post #14

Because serving dodgy ads pays them a lot of money. The pivot is complete. 90% of the ads I see on YouTube are obvious scams. Many from untraceable shady overseas organizations. You can see the data if you report them. It's always some unheard of outfit out of Hong Kong or Brazil. I want to know who is funding this. You don't need to be Kreskin to figure this one out.

> You can see the data if you report them.

That's at least something. Last I was on a streaming service, they were very fastidious about not revealing who was behind a spammer's rotating "music labels", despite them by law having some kind of payment details for them.

Re: Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

#53

Post by wnc3141 »

martin_a wrote: post #46
CqtGLRGcukpy wrote: post #2

I have two guesses why Google does this: 1) Google wants the most money, so they don't care to let dodgy ads thru. 2) There are more ads going out then can be reviewed, so they would rather have people report them, then they automatically reject the report until enough people report it, then an actual person may review it. As to why Google doesn't use AI to review them? Google would rather use the AI in a way that ma…

> so they would rather have people report them I have reported so many of those dodgy, scammy, sexualized ads on YouTube, that YouTube/Google has removed the option to report advertisements from my account. They don't care as long as they're getting paid and there's no immediate liability for them.

The brooklinen ads are mortifying when I'm online in public

Re: Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

#54

Post by motbus3 »

CqtGLRGcukpy wrote: post #2

I have two guesses why Google does this: 1) Google wants the most money, so they don't care to let dodgy ads thru. 2) There are more ads going out then can be reviewed, so they would rather have people report them, then they automatically reject the report until enough people report it, then an actual person may review it. As to why Google doesn't use AI to review them? Google would rather use the AI in a way that ma…

1 and 2 I believe But also when you see what sort of information you can get from putting ads alone, even when people dont click, is quite amazing.

Re: Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

#56

Post by smugglerFlynn »

gdulli wrote: post #38

A lot of questions being raised today can be answered by the recently inverted power balance between users/customers and corporations. People have not yet internalized that old assumptions about how corporations fear losing customers are no longer valid. Consumers have become entirely docile and passive. Open hostility to consumers is now a norm. (Obviously regulation is also less powerful and less feared as well.)

Many large modern corporations are third-hand cars. The original owner had a purpose and an emotional investment in owning the car; for the second-hand owner, it became a practical thing; for the third-hand owner, it is often a liability.

If you are lucky, your third-hand owner still checks the oil and puts quality tires on it. If you are not, your third-hand owner pours customer relationships down the drain and doubles down on indiscriminate cost-cutting, alienating good people from the organization.

Re: Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

#57

Post by vintermann »

snailmailman wrote: post #25

Google can reply and confirm whether or not a report did anything? I’ve never seen that. I report ads on YouTube all the time. I’ve reported ads for illegal drugs, illegal firearms, pornography, and all sorts of various scams. I’ve seen similar advertising to the example in this article, mimicking the phone’s UI. Ive reported them. I’ve never once seen Google reply to any of my reports to confirm what happened. I’ve…

I can recall one time I got feedback from Google that an ad had indeed been taken down, that was an Ukrainian women dating ad in Gmail which was not subtle at all about offering trafficked women. But that's some time ago.

Re: Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

#58

Post by snailmailman »

beloch wrote: post #36

This is one major reason why blocking ads is now a safety issue. If you have a family member who, for whatever reason, might be fooled by this sort of ad, install an effective adblocker on all their browsers and uninstall/disable browsers that don't support an effective adblocker. If you are reliant on ad revenue, you should be expressing your displeasure to google right now.

When Google broke the original uBlock origin and made people switch to uBlock Lite, I found out about the change because my grandmother called me in a panic. She saw an ad like the one in this article on her Facebook page and clicked it, then it was telling her to call Microsoft support because her computer was infected.

Like, Google removing Adblock directly caused that. Facebook allowing the ad caused that. The ad led to malicious page that was also hosted on a Microsoft thing, and I ended up reporting it to them too. Microsoft at least promptly took it down within a half hour after I reported it. But these big companies have almost no incentive to stop this, and some of them directly profit off of these scams happening.

Re: Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

#59

Post by codygman »

wnc3141 wrote: post #53
martin_a wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so they would rather have people report them I have reported so many of those dodgy, scammy, sexualized ads on YouTube, that YouTube/Google has removed the option to report advertisements from my account. They don't care as long as they're getting paid and there's no immediate liability for them.

The brooklinen ads are mortifying when I'm online in public

Use an adblocker?

That's what I do and why I don't even know what brooklinen is.

Re: Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

#60

Post by MBCook »

walrus01 wrote: post #51
CqtGLRGcukpy wrote: post #2

I have two guesses why Google does this: 1) Google wants the most money, so they don't care to let dodgy ads thru. 2) There are more ads going out then can be reviewed, so they would rather have people report them, then they automatically reject the report until enough people report it, then an actual person may review it. As to why Google doesn't use AI to review them? Google would rather use the AI in a way that ma…

> 2) There are more ads going out then can be reviewed The "more than can be reviewed" might have been a logical conclusion in a purely human based workflow, even if you have the lowest cost per head click workers in like, an external contractor call centre type environment in Bangladesh. As the author points out, the ordinary consumer class version of publicly available Gemini very accurately classifies the ad as ma…

How about I rephrase it.

More than can be reviewed for the time and money they’re willing to spend.

Even before AI, they absolutely could’ve done it.

Post reply on HN