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

Calling Their Bluff

anguscheng.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#81

Post by K0balt »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #73
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your position at all (and I don't mean this aggressively, I just can't get myself into a position of understanding). From my current perspective you seem to be absolving Google of any responsibility for, literally, their product. My reasoning is: Google have created an advertising platform. It is their raison d'etre; their entire millions per hour profit engine. But they only built the easy, profit…

> Google have created an advertising platform. It is their raison d'etre; their entire millions per hour profit engine. But they only built the easy, profitable half because there were / are no regulations to enforce the responsible, difficult half. Baked into this is the assumption that the "responsible, difficult half" is something that they, rather than law enforcement, should be doing to begin with. Which they ca…

Google is not a public road. It is A company that operates on public roads that delivers advertising. It’s a company driving around billboard trailers on public roads. Are you saying that a billboard company should not have any ethical standards or liability regarding the companies that they advertise on their billboards? Somehow, Google manages to not openly advertise CSAM buttthey can’t shutdown obvious scams? It’s simply a matter of having a responsible review procedure before publishing an ad. In the age of LLMs , you can’t tell me that is impossible.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#82

Post by AnthonyMouse »

K0balt wrote: post #81
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google have created an advertising platform. It is their raison d'etre; their entire millions per hour profit engine. But they only built the easy, profitable half because there were / are no regulations to enforce the responsible, difficult half. Baked into this is the assumption that the "responsible, difficult half" is something that they, rather than law enforcement, should be doing to begin with. Which they ca…

Google is not a public road. It is A company that operates on public roads that delivers advertising. It’s a company driving around billboard trailers on public roads. Are you saying that a billboard company should not have any ethical standards or liability regarding the companies that they advertise on their billboards? Somehow, Google manages to not openly advertise CSAM buttthey can’t shutdown obvious scams? It’s…

> Google is not a public road. It is A company that operates on public roads that delivers advertising.

So is UPS or FedEx or USPS. Are you saying they should be responsible for the contents of every package? How are they even supposed to know what the contents is? They can ask the sender but the sender can just lie.

> Somehow, Google manages to not openly advertise CSAM buttthey can’t shutdown obvious scams?

CSAM is a lot more obvious than most scams, because CSAM looks like CSAM whereas a fake login form just looks like a any other login form.

> In the age of LLMs , you can’t tell me that is impossible.

LLMs are exactly the thing that doesn't work for this.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#83

Post by K0balt »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #82
K0balt wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not a public road. It is A company that operates on public roads that delivers advertising. It’s a company driving around billboard trailers on public roads. Are you saying that a billboard company should not have any ethical standards or liability regarding the companies that they advertise on their billboards? Somehow, Google manages to not openly advertise CSAM buttthey can’t shutdown obvious scams? It’s…

> Google is not a public road. It is A company that operates on public roads that delivers advertising. So is UPS or FedEx or USPS. Are you saying they should be responsible for the contents of every package? How are they even supposed to know what the contents is ? They can ask the sender but the sender can just lie. > Somehow, Google manages to not openly advertise CSAM buttthey can’t shutdown obvious scams? CSAM i…

UPS and FedEx don’t know the package content because it’s sealed and private.

An advertisement is the exact opposite of private, and Google absolutely can review every single ad that runs on their system.

I’m talking about ads, things they take money in order to make public, not encrypted data they move from point a to point b.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#84

Post by K0balt »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #82
K0balt wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not a public road. It is A company that operates on public roads that delivers advertising. It’s a company driving around billboard trailers on public roads. Are you saying that a billboard company should not have any ethical standards or liability regarding the companies that they advertise on their billboards? Somehow, Google manages to not openly advertise CSAM buttthey can’t shutdown obvious scams? It’s…

> Google is not a public road. It is A company that operates on public roads that delivers advertising. So is UPS or FedEx or USPS. Are you saying they should be responsible for the contents of every package? How are they even supposed to know what the contents is ? They can ask the sender but the sender can just lie. > Somehow, Google manages to not openly advertise CSAM buttthey can’t shutdown obvious scams? CSAM i…

Does this appear to be an official government website?

Does this url match the government website in question?

9/10 my local 7B LLM answers correctly.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#85

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

nicbou wrote: post #55
ricudis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Greece, traditionally, we tend to consider Germany as the almost ultimate place in regards to reliability, efficiency, etc. It's a bit soothing to discover that almost everywhere everybody has the same issues (the difference in magnitude matters, of course)

It's a myth. Germans are methodical and risk-averse, but definitely not efficient. Things to get stuck at the precise point in time when they were over-engineered, and never move from there. As a result, German bureaucracy tends to rely solely on paper and in-person appointments. With every state, every city, every office and every employee having their own interpretation of a procesd, you get an unpredictable, opaqu…

Don't axe the FAX, it's holy.

But fear not, its last disciples will die out soon.

By then we'll be fully digital, hold in check by Electrons bloated thrall, solely.

What a boon.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#86

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

nicbou wrote: post #55
ricudis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Greece, traditionally, we tend to consider Germany as the almost ultimate place in regards to reliability, efficiency, etc. It's a bit soothing to discover that almost everywhere everybody has the same issues (the difference in magnitude matters, of course)

It's a myth. Germans are methodical and risk-averse, but definitely not efficient. Things to get stuck at the precise point in time when they were over-engineered, and never move from there. As a result, German bureaucracy tends to rely solely on paper and in-person appointments. With every state, every city, every office and every employee having their own interpretation of a procesd, you get an unpredictable, opaqu…

Actually we have(or had?) another, more common wording for that sort of bureaucraZy:

Schreibtischpingpong where you are the ball being table tennised from desk to desk :)

I never heard 'Büroflipper', which comes to mind when thinking about this. Being the ball in a pin ball machine.

Probably because it's too fast, compared to the latencies in real life. But that would apply to Schreibtischpingpong, too.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#87

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #69
Schweigerose wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These times are long gone. Not only with government efficiency, but the transition to digital services, railroad services, you name it. And yet people voted for a 68 year old Blackrock manager without any kind of governmental expertise on any level as their new saviour.

Yeah these days the masters of officiencynard probably Japan.

Panasonic, so iconic.

For offcice equipment, like fax, phones, copiers, printers...

They were everywhere, around 2000.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#88

Post by AnthonyMouse »

K0balt wrote: post #84
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is not a public road. It is A company that operates on public roads that delivers advertising. So is UPS or FedEx or USPS. Are you saying they should be responsible for the contents of every package? How are they even supposed to know what the contents is ? They can ask the sender but the sender can just lie. > Somehow, Google manages to not openly advertise CSAM buttthey can’t shutdown obvious scams? CSAM i…

Does this appear to be an official government website? Does this url match the government website in question? 9/10 my local 7B LLM answers correctly.

A 10% false positive rate is worthless.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#89

Post by AnthonyMouse »

K0balt wrote: post #83
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is not a public road. It is A company that operates on public roads that delivers advertising. So is UPS or FedEx or USPS. Are you saying they should be responsible for the contents of every package? How are they even supposed to know what the contents is ? They can ask the sender but the sender can just lie. > Somehow, Google manages to not openly advertise CSAM buttthey can’t shutdown obvious scams? CSAM i…

UPS and FedEx don’t know the package content because it’s sealed and private. An advertisement is the exact opposite of private, and Google absolutely can review every single ad that runs on their system. I’m talking about ads, things they take money in order to make public, not encrypted data they move from point a to point b.

> An advertisement is the exact opposite of private

The ad itself doesn't tell you anything. The ad copy can look legitimate. Even for many real websites, the link will commonly go through a third party redirect for tracking purposes, but then the ad network has no way to know if the third party server changes where the link redirects after they reviewed it. They also have no way to know if the site the link points to is affiliated with the entity it claims to be or not.

> Google absolutely can review every single ad that runs on their system.

You can't spend $1000 investigating an ad someone is paying you $10 to run, and spending a small fraction of $10 to review an ad is not going to be thorough enough catch most of the offenders.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#90

Post by K0balt »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #89
K0balt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UPS and FedEx don’t know the package content because it’s sealed and private. An advertisement is the exact opposite of private, and Google absolutely can review every single ad that runs on their system. I’m talking about ads, things they take money in order to make public, not encrypted data they move from point a to point b.

> An advertisement is the exact opposite of private The ad itself doesn't tell you anything. The ad copy can look legitimate. Even for many real websites, the link will commonly go through a third party redirect for tracking purposes, but then the ad network has no way to know if the third party server changes where the link redirects after they reviewed it. They also have no way to know if the site the link points t…

I think there was a a line somewhere between “we will literally run ads that purport to sell products that obviously cannot exist based on any known physics” and “we audit the financials of the parent companies of anyone that advertises on our platform” that would reasonably qualify as due diligence.

The problem isn’t that sometimes Google screws up and lets a bad actor advertise on its platform, it’s that Google (and others) have made it their business model to allow bad actors to advertise on their platform. They knowingly profit from fraud.

Out of curiosity I have followed up on some of the most blatantly ridiculous ads. They typically are a first tier filter for gullibility, and never actually lead to the promised product, but rather diverting into a web of identity theft fishing, investing fraud, cryptocurrency theft, malware droppers, etc. These are funnels into real harm. And the sucker pitch is intentionally an obviously impossible product that any decent 7B LLM would tell you is probably fraudulent.

Now that I followed a few up to see where they went, that account gets shown hundreds of ads of this type from Google, and especially on YouTube. I did some AdWords research to see what those click throughs would sell for and they are very high priced exposures and clicks.

This would be trivial for Google to flag if they wanted to, but it’s a significant and growing revenue generator.

Post reply on HN