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

Google have declared Droidscript is malware

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#601

Post by phist_mcgee »

chii wrote: post #582
dfabulich wrote: post #546

This article is big news, because it shows that Google will permanently yank your Android app if your website violates AdSense's secret fraud detector! If you're running Google AdSense ads and you have an Android app that you care about, take down the ads immediately and switch to another vendor. AdSense is the product where Google pays you for running banner ads; they can and frequently do kick people off of it for…

if you don't interlink your app account and your website's adsense google account, then this _shouldn't_ really be an issue right? So i say always maintain separate google accounts for individual apps, for individual usages. Separate your personal google account from your business account, from your ad-network account etc. And i would argue that each individual app should own their own account (you pay for this of co…

The word `interlink` now always reminds me of:

And blood-black nothingness began to spin... A system of cells interlinked within cells interlinked within cells interlinked within one stem... And dreadfully distinct against the dark, a tall white fountain played.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#602

Post by rlayton2 »

randallsquared wrote: post #512
orangeoxidation wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A valid explanation, but not one I believe applies here. This ban is not only not explaining how it detected unwanted activity, it is not explaining what activity it detected. "We detected you faking ad impressions, though we won't tell you how we (believe we) know" is very different to "We detected you (or your app) doing something wrong, stop doing it and you will be fine. We won't tell you what you did wrong".

"Our ML system registered a hit on your account, which is almost always associated with policy violations, but we don't know what the trigger was, or why that set of data about your account is almost always associated with policy violations... it just is."

"and we know the ML system always works, because those that get banned from it never get their account reinstated"

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#603

Post by Kliment »

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #489
coffeecat wrote: post #368

> In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account (Publisher Code: pub-********) and as a result it has been disabled. Because of this, the ability to serve and monetise through all products which depend on AdSense will also be disabled (for example, AdMob and YouTube). > We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be use…

PSA: "Der Process", English "The Trial", is old enough so you can read it for free on the internet, e.g. on Project Gutenberg: https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849 It's a really entertaining read. And yes, it perfectly matches this situation - right in the very first sentence already.

For German users who are blocked from Project Gutenberg, here is the original text (in German) http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Kafka,+Franz/Romane/Der+Proz...

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#604

Post by darkwater »

x0x0 wrote: post #564
vaastav wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about false positives? How did you account for that?

I also worked on adtech. We viewed them as a cost of doing business. Some small accounts got nuked. :shrug: If we had to have humans investigate everything, and produce reports / interpretations that nuked customers found satisfactory, we wouldn't have been willing to service accounts under probably $40k/year. And keep in mind the ecosystem is filthy with fraud, particularly on the low end. There very much are groups…

> And as @PeterisP says... look, we're not a court. We're a private business that is refusing to do further business with someone. Our right to do this was very clearly explained before the beginning of any relationship, and agreed to by that someone. If that someone doesn't like it, their recourse is to not do business with us.

So you are basically justifying Google behavior. You are not a court, that's right. But every ban process should be easily and quickly prosecutable to settle the issue right in a court. Obviously real fraudsters will never appeal like that, because they know they would incur in even bigger problems.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#605

Post by blacklight »

judge2020 wrote: post #543
blacklight wrote: post #472

This is the same story that HN readers have read hundreds of times over the past couple of years, just with different subjects. Independent developer/small organization gets their app/YouTube channel/Google account shut down overnight because of false positives triggered by their system. It takes weeks and insistence with bots to just get to speak to a human. When you get to speak to a human, they usually respond wit…

I wonder if it's even a false positive. Imagine some ad fraud agency is using droidscript as a means to click on ads programmatically in a completely different app (which seems possible based on the overview) - how does Google distinguish between that and any other app using the same APIs to fraudulently click ads? What if there's actual malware that uses droidscript as a vehicle to do this to unsuspecting users' pho…

Well there's theoretically a very easy way to do it: static analysis of the source code, especially if it's open source like in DroidScript's case :)

Does it look like any of the references to the malware domain could come from the app itself? Then it's the app's fault. Otherwise, it's the user's fault.

You can also use Python to write ad bots and malware, but that's not a sufficient reason to ban the whole Python language (or any other programming language).

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#606

Post by chalst »

blacklight wrote: post #472

This is the same story that HN readers have read hundreds of times over the past couple of years, just with different subjects. Independent developer/small organization gets their app/YouTube channel/Google account shut down overnight because of false positives triggered by their system. It takes weeks and insistence with bots to just get to speak to a human. When you get to speak to a human, they usually respond wit…

I hope the Droidscript devs do take it to F-Droid, but as it stands, the app faces a few hurdles before the F-Droid team will accept it.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#607

Post by chalst »

22c wrote: post #516
Meph504 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that there are alternatives for anyone but a fringe market without Google is pretty short sited, for example my phone warned me 4 times before it would let me install and use f-droid, each message made it sound like proceeding was compromising my phone. It's a synthetic but effective barrier to prevent the majority of people from setting it up. The mobile environment is as bad as chit, and company stores. Th…

DroidScript users already sound like a fringe market. Seems like the perfect candidate for F-Droid, however I don't know what the F-Droid policy is on showing ads (which sounds like they are not too concerned about keeping in the app, anyway).

Ads are possible but discouraged. They're what F-Droid calls an 'anti-feature', and IIUC Droidscript has a few of them.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#608

Post by x0x0 »

darkwater wrote: post #604
x0x0 wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also worked on adtech. We viewed them as a cost of doing business. Some small accounts got nuked. :shrug: If we had to have humans investigate everything, and produce reports / interpretations that nuked customers found satisfactory, we wouldn't have been willing to service accounts under probably $40k/year. And keep in mind the ecosystem is filthy with fraud, particularly on the low end. There very much are groups…

> And as @PeterisP says... look, we're not a court. We're a private business that is refusing to do further business with someone. Our right to do this was very clearly explained before the beginning of any relationship, and agreed to by that someone. If that someone doesn't like it, their recourse is to not do business with us. So you are basically justifying Google behavior. You are not a court, that's right. But e…

> Obviously real fraudsters will never appeal like that

I now know you have no experience at all fighting online fraud. People, um, lie.

On a serious note, if you require a prosecutable ban process -- whatever that means, because prosecuting is something the government does -- where you'll end is my original point. Ad companies will refuse to do business with publishers that aren't above some minimum threshold. My guess is $40k a year. Because remember eg google or whoever keeps about 1/3 of that money, so a $1k/mo minimum to staff humans and deal with arguing feels ballpark reasonable.

Separately, I'm not justifying anything. I'm explaining the economics driving behavior. If you want to be mad at me for behavior I don't control or influence... :shrug:

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#609

Post by adamors »

serial_dev wrote: post #569
sanxiyn wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure they can. They just chose not to. Do not support Apple. Do not support Google. Support freedom.

And if you are a mobile developer, change career?

Yes, also stop being poor as well while you're at it. Stop needing food and shelter all together.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#610

Post by vntok »

croes wrote: post #12
vntok wrote: post #3

Well, is it? The linked post is obviously biased, so I'd rather wait for more information instead of getting my pitchfork out immediately.

"The Register asked Google to explain why DroidScript was removed and whether it's possible the policy violation allegations might have been made in error. We've not heard back." https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/27/droidscript_google_ba...

Why would they owe anything to the Register?
Post reply on HN