81–90 of 236 posts
Parasites like this have also colonized plumbing, locksmiths etc, as has been discussed on this site in the past. Seems like straight up fraud to me.
If you try to sell property on your own, you'll get many unsolicited offers from real estate agents, sometimes claiming they already have a buyer and sometimes this is even true.
I'm not sure if this is helpful, but Google has a trademark complaint form specifically for this kind of situation: https://services.google.com/inquiry/aw_tmcomplaint
Google opens the floodgates to the spam-dam, but here's a bucket and a ladder you can use in case you want to put some of the water back.
In this instance isn't Google guilty of fraud? They put on their website something that defrauds, it being called "search" makes no difference IMHO. Isn't there in the US a small claims court for the restaurant to seek takedown and compensation for damages?
No, the person creating the fake ad is guilty of fraud. Google is guilty of not verifying it enough. Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is. Same as Walmart isn't guilty of poisoning people when they stock a product that's spoiled in production, but merely failing to verify proper credentials set up by regulators.…
People certainly can point the finger, for them to share some accountability, because Apple/Google are debatably suppressing competition. If people must use their store or search engine, then become victims of fraud, they are going to question how such got through their filtering systems and why can't they have other alternatives. It's one thing, if on an open system, the user chose a shady app on some odd corner of the web and it's another if the app is put in front of their face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow - you say "Google is guilty of not verifying it enough", then you turn around and say it's bad that people "demand that megacorporations control access to your products". Which is it?
Both. It can be both. Compare to food: it's like demanding that Walmart screen all the food itself to protect you and then you'd screech at Walmart and only Walmart for not making sure Keloggs cereal is healthy while letting the manufacturer off the hook with zero (I repeat, zero, none, null, NADA) consequences for fraud and damage they caused. The way media, HNers and other people behave is creating a situation that…
Spoiled advertisements/news programs/blog spam are not easy to identify by _todays_ customers, and thus do not incentivize quality controls. I think the solution to todays attention problem is to meet the problem on the same battlefield; attention! If anyone has a clever idea to marry people w/o situational awareness to a flywheel that creates situational awareness lmk.
It has always boggled my mind that you're even allowed to publish ads targeting other companies brand names as keywords without being the verified owner of that company. But I understand Google here. It's probably their single biggest income stream. Our company is using a very big chunk of our ad words budget targeting our own brand name to make sure it's on top. More than for any other keyword by far. And I imagine…
Google are enabling fraud on a massive scale by permitting the hijacking of established names and brands. Often brands or names that some small family company has worked for years to build a reputation for.
We do indeed live in a world where tech and capitalism have birthed some sort of horrific offspring that’s choking us all.
I noticed the website was weird and I found my way to the correct one.
In this instance isn't Google guilty of fraud? They put on their website something that defrauds, it being called "search" makes no difference IMHO. Isn't there in the US a small claims court for the restaurant to seek takedown and compensation for damages?
No, the person creating the fake ad is guilty of fraud. Google is guilty of not verifying it enough. Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is. Same as Walmart isn't guilty of poisoning people when they stock a product that's spoiled in production, but merely failing to verify proper credentials set up by regulators.…
It has always boggled my mind that you're even allowed to publish ads targeting other companies brand names as keywords without being the verified owner of that company. But I understand Google here. It's probably their single biggest income stream. Our company is using a very big chunk of our ad words budget targeting our own brand name to make sure it's on top. More than for any other keyword by far. And I imagine…
This is an underrated comment. Google are enabling fraud on a massive scale by permitting the hijacking of established names and brands. Often brands or names that some small family company has worked for years to build a reputation for. We do indeed live in a world where tech and capitalism have birthed some sort of horrific offspring that’s choking us all.
As expected, an excellent read: TLDR: Scammers cloned a restaurant website. Amex gave them a merchant account despite fake address and fake phone number. Google let them advertise the fake restaurant despite none of the data matching Google's knowledge box. And I just love the quote, here in context: "Doug @Rushkoff says that the ethic of today's "entrepreneur" is to #GoMeta - don't provide a product or a service, si…
I am pretty sure that doctorow how has a better imagination than to believe that "Holy shit do we live in the worst of all possible timelines." We actually live in a pretty good timeline when we complain about ordering Thai food over the internet and the worst that happens is we get our food delivered with some trouble.
But, equally, do you enjoy your paradise when you’re dimly aware you might be living in The Matrix?