Why aren't advertisers (Microsoft, Facebook, Google) held responsible for allowing scammy adverts?
I know they allow scam adverts because it's easy money, but why aren't they held responsible for facilitating obvious scams? You open Edge, there's 3 "Earn money quick" adverts. On Instagram, every 5 ads, one is a scam.
I've always hated advertising, but I hated it even more once I worked in advertising.
That being said, it's unfair to advertisers. (ugh, I hate saying that, because it's a slimy business, but this is the reality) Nobody has the time to thoroughly research EVERY business that wants to buy advertising. Also, there's a fine line between scams and completely legal yet manipulative business.
Bill might be starting a legitimate small business and wants to advertise to get his first clients. There's very little information available online and no reviews because he's just starting out, but that could look like a fly by night scammer.
Joe owns a similar small business. He charges too much and he doesn't do very good work. That's not illegal, but people who use his services might feel like they got scammed.
Bob's a piece of shit. He wants to take your money and give you nothing in return. He knows what an advertiser would look for to verify his legitimacy, and he makes a fake website full of fake reviews.
In this instance, the advertiser might refuse to sell to Bill, get sued for selling to Joe and spend money and time proving that he's technically legit, and perhaps not even know that Bob's a scammer until months after he's taken the money and run.
Uhhh maybe they should find the time to do that then? How is "we don't have the time" a valid excuse? Either hire more staff to do so, or sell fewer ads.
It's not just time and resources, they too are being lied to. If the scam is good enough that people will fall for it, some advertisers will as well.
Right now there are no regulations, so many don't care at all. That sucks, but the scammers are the problem here. They are the ones trying to rip you off. The ad companies might not care if you get screwed or not, but it's unrealistic for us to expect them to know EXACTLY what every client's intentions are. A business could run legitimately for years and then start running a scam. How long would we give the advertisers to realize that the client has started scamming people? Do they get in trouble because they ran ads for someone who would LATER start scamming people?
I'm all for discussing other ways to control advertising, but shooting the messenger isn't it.
Absolutely. There is an exchange of money involved in the advertising services, so it would be natural to expect a small fee for sanity-checking the advertisement. Facebook are mostly able to check for nudity, porn or gore in the advertisement, so with some additional inspection, it should be possible to weed out a lot of scams.
Well, it hurts the holy profit... also, you sound like a fucking communist!
I really try to caution people from accepting these "it's too much to hold us accountable for" answers. If it's too much, then cut back. Simple as that. If I am a real estate mogul and my building collapses like in Miami, do you think the local/state/federal agencies involved will shrug it off when I go "Now now now, I have far too many properties. I can't possibly be expected to be in compliance all the time. A collapse and some deaths once in a while is inevitable"? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Yet when youtube goes "we simply have too many uploads to screen it all," we do just that!
Same goes here. If you're juggling too many advertisers, why is that our problem? Hire more people, scale back, or figure out some third option. Instead we all just internalized this concept that "there's nothing that can be done."
Yeah. This is why we have things called regulations.
When seatbelts and crumple zones and airbags and crash safety ratings became a thing, car manufacturers didn’t want to add any of that crap in, because, you know, it would cut into their profit margins. And then the government said “do it or you’re not allowed to sell cars”. And then all the manufacturers did it.
Something similar can theoretically be done for advertising. But it probably won’t, because regulatory capture has been normalized.
Nobody has the time to thoroughly research EVERY business that wants to buy advertising.
Wrong. Nobody wants to spend the money to do that, because they know they will not be held responsible for aiding and abetting fraud.
Change the responsibility factor, and the money will be there.
Or, instead of finding that money, they find another way to avoid spending it.
It wouldn't be long before you only see advertising from large corporations. Love them or hate them, we all know that Walmart is a legit business. A potential, morally superior competitor, that we've never heard of may not even get the chance to advertise. The newspaper or TV station doesn't want to risk getting sued for a scam, so they just refuse service. Walmart keeps playing ads, and nobody ever hears about the store that we never knew we wanted.
Nobody has the time
This is a dumb excuse for a profitable business. If you’re making money on it you should be able to subsidize controls. If you can’t operate a business safely and still make a profit, you shouldn’t be in business. It’s that simple.
Makes sense when you're dealing with actual services or products, but I've yet to see a single "earn 200 per hour" ad that isn't a scam or "legal" pyramid, those should be easy enough to block and ban, no?
Who decides which legal businesses are allowed to run ads?
I completely agree that MLMs are a "scam" but they are legitimate businesses in the eyes of the law. You suggested we ban them, so what defines who is allowed to advertise and who isn't? I'm not comfortable with leaving it as "anything somebody in charge doesn't like".
I reported a scam ad to YouTube (it said it was a 1000 dollar giveaway to the first I don't know how many people that signed up). When I googled it the top results were all about how it was a scam. Got feedback a few days later: we don't see a problem, the ad is staying up. So they are even knowingly making the choice to show these scams to their users...
They never gave me feedback on any of the scams I reported - they just removed my ability to report ads at all
Because citizens of many countries are not pressuring their elected officials to change advertising laws such that there is accountability, but companies are most certainly constantly lobbying for relaxed regulations.
It's not often you can look to Brasil for policy guidance, so São Paulo's ban on billboards/outside advertising is pretty remarkable in a number of ways. If they can rid a city of outdoor advertising, surely the world can get a few advertising oversight laws?
The downside is that you can't just throw up your hands and say "Someone else should fix this! Why haven't they?" and walk off. It's a chore that takes time and energy from an already time and energy poor population, and I respect that there is a lot of broken shit in this world that needs fixing.
One best side effects of that "clean city" law is that building are clean to be used as canvases for artists to paint giant murals on them and now the city is know for its incredible street art.
Because they have unfathomably ridiculous amounts of money that they spend on lobbying (read: bribery) so that they stay not responsible.
Because they have tons of money for lobbyists and outright buying politicians.
Because to the tech industry, stuff like "basic accountability", "selling things people actually want", and "developing without limitless free capital" are all considered hate crimes.
Nah, the problem OP poses was also a major issue with TV ads, specially the kind of ads with that whole telemarketing, "buy now get 2 free, but wait there's more, we'll throw in these accessories all for" vibe. And radio, and magazines. A lot of snake oil and re-branded stuff was sold through it.
The real reason why accountability isn't given to the platforms is because then the platforms would be less sustainable. And for the older media, that might have been fine still. But not so much the internet, which arguably, barely sustains itself on a gigantic ad-based bubble. It would be a death-throw for 99% of what we build and consume online. We just simply depend on ads THAT much.
I say they should try anyways. Absolutely. I do think the internet could benefit from having a lot more, smaller website, like before. We're even popularizing the concept of interoperability again, like, man, we're posting on Lemmy, a platform made to spread platforms. I think we're closers to kill the ad dependency now than we ever been after the death of usenet.
Forget ads, Microsofts "free trial" wasn't free or a trial. You'd be charged for a product that would show up on your bank statement as free. Short answer; no one in a position of power gives a fuck.
Trillion dollar company, multibillion dollar company, trillion dollar company
And all 3 of them will point to the 1st amendment as prohibiting the government from regulating speech outside of a few very narrow circumstances.
One of which is fraud. So yeah, this argument holds no water. The only reason this shit is allowed is money. There's money to be made by allowing it. And money to be lost in preventing it. The end.
Bro every day I open edge at work and the home page is just scammy adverts, ad revenue farming top 10 slides, or garbage about which dog are you.
I do think they should be held to account over what they show on there.
You know you can turn that shit off right? Make the edge new tab basically a search bar and a top sites you visited page.
People and corporations with money are above the law.
I know someone who works as a fraud support team of a bank. An incredibly high percentage of people getting scammed come from Facebook. Either they believed an ad about investing in crypto (the bank blocks the first transaction automatically and they have to talk to the client), or they have been contacted by.... Zuckerberg, or Elon Musk, who told them they needed investors for an experiment that will be extremely lucrative.... I can't believe people fall for that one.
They are in the UK, I reported one to ASA and they made them remove it.
The websites (or at least Google & Facebook - not sure about Microsoft, it could just be low value ad space that nobody really wants?) you've described are known as "walled gardens" in advertising, meaning the DSP (demand side platform, where people who run ad campaigns manage those campaigns), SSP (supply-side platform, where websites & apps with available add space list that space) and at times the website itself are all part of the same company.
This creates a conflict of interest - essentially DSPs want to place as few ads as reasonable as they only want to advertise to people the ads will have an impact on. SSPs want to show as many ads as possible so they get paid more. This results in walled gardens, like Google & Facebook, showing ads more than they should be resulting in overcharging as a result compared to an optimally run campaign. Many reputable companies and ad agencies are aware of this and so advertise less with the walled gardens, resulting in proportionally higher scam ads, as no agency would run a campaign for them.
There's also the fact that they have no relationships to maintain. If a DSP is constantly showing scam ads in the ad spaces they buy, then they'll get blacklisted by the SSP. Same the other way around if the SSP keeps selling misrepresented ad spaces that will never be seen or will be resold every 5 seconds to the DSP, or otherwise not being a trustworthy partner to work with. As the walled gardens don't need to maintain this relationship and there's no risk of being blacklisted, they can effectively advertise whatever and put ads wherever on their website - they're generally powerful enough that people will use their product anyway, so there's no downside for them to accepting scam ads if they're paying.
You guys see adds?
laughs in uBO
Adnausem. Clicks on the ads in the background while hiding them. No ads and fucking up your digital footprint, come at me targeted advertisements.
Because they have money...
It is the law's job to prevent and stop scams not of the platform that provides the advertising
If I had a printing shop (not sure how is it called in English) should I be the one who checks that what is written on the handouts is legit? Heck no, I don't have the means for that.
You can't print whole books if your costumer asks you to without having permission to do so, you would be a distributor. If you ask the question "if I do something illegal or harmful to someone, should I be taken responsibility?" you can get a better answer. You don't need a third party to take ethical decisions for you. That's the point of the thread, ad companies have knowledge about harmful ads and refuse to take them down.
What if I decide to print my own book? A book that has no copyright at all, should the print shop prevent me from doing so?
As you (hopefully) can see a print shop has no job enforcing the law just as much as an advertiser has to
Enforcing the law is for law enforcement
I agree with that in general but think that the scenario changes when you KNOW that you're doing business with scammers.
Then why my ad for cocaine and hookers was taken down 😤
Yes.
Any service you offer professionally should absolutely be reviewed for legality. If you didn't have the means to comply with laws and regulations you shouldn't be in business.
And in the case of lots of these ads with malware, it would be like you printing poison ink on handouts, and saying you aren't to blame.
Googles been supporting Prager U for many years
Because they are not making the adverts. That is it. As they are not the creator they won't be held responsible.
So I guess it's okay to distribute CP, because you aren't the creator, therefore you're not going to be held responsible.
According to the law you are required to remove it as soon as you know it is there, but if you are not the original uploader you are not going to be held responsible
If I received financial compensation to promote a Ponzi scheme I would be held accountable.