I reported about 5 such ads just this moth, all clear financial scams impersonating well known people and companies in Czech republic (where I live), only to be told that youtube checked my claim and that the add in question doesn't break any youtube policy.
Obviously nothing is forcing Google to deal with this in any way. But I wonder how could that work out for Google in the long run.
The same thing happened to me. Ads from Kazakhstan impersonating a Czech state-owned energy company etc. And almost every day there is an article in the news about how older people have been caught and lost their savings.
Google is not alone in promoting such scams and being complicit of crime. The law doesn't apply to big companies though, so they can keep doing so and profiting off it.
> Obviously nothing is forcing Google to deal with this in any way
Really? I mean, they're getting paid by a scammer who uses provably fake and deceptive content to prey on its victims; they have been alerted to the situation, they claim they reviewed it, and that they think it's fine. What could go wrong?
Yeah. This is why I doubt it's a good strategy for Google in the long term. Sooner or later, someone will be finally pissed off enough to go after this practice (either a government or another big US company).
That said, there seems to be no legal way for a big Czech company to go neither against Google or the scammers, otherwise this would have been already resolved. CEZ (one of the companies being impersonated by the scammers here) made a press release about this almost 2 years ago (references are in Czech):
Thanks. I still don't understand how is it possible that suing youtube doesn't work after having reported the ads and having been told that they're fine. You basically have a written statement from the company that incriminates them.
Because your mega advertisers (Coca Cola, Disney, et al) are being played next to scam ads.
Also I think this should be a two way street. If content creators need to moderate their content lest they be slapped to death by Youtube to help the advertisers, advertisers also have a responsibility to ensure their advertisements do not cause issue for content creators and/or viewers.
It's unclear who currently runs Youtube, but they have been making bad decision after bad decision. Youtube is now extremely hostile which goes against the values it once held when it first grew.
Yeah, I want to see them stop advertising on YouTube as a protest. I doubt it will happen. They only care about money and image, if image damages their money.
Does big Cola advertise on youtube? I haven't seen their ads at all (but since I don't drink soda maybe their profiles worked and coke isn't wasting adds on me?). Most of the big advertising plays elsewhere don't seem to be on youtube.
I have working adblock so can't say, but this should certainly be the season for their traditional connection and image marketing... So if ads were to appear it should be now.
Both. You can't listen to traditional radio for more than 20 minutes without hearing a McDonalds ad (at breakfast time). Drinks (both soft and hard), and cars are also big spenders on advertisements.
I have seen a few ads for those things on YouTube, but it isn't as constant as other forms of media.
- ad-blocking - they are working on disabling ad-blockers, give it some time. You cannot block ads in the official apps.
- regulators are slow, you can make money now. Probably even with regulations they would still make money from the scam ads.
Reputable companies generally don't want to advertise in an environment that could be damaging to their brands. This is why Google/YouTube created the "advertiser-friendly content guidelines". For the same reason a number of big brands pulled their X.com/Twitter ad campaigns.
Ad companies usually don't own the broadcast network too.
Garbage ads damage a brand. Google doesn't do anything because they think Youtube's goodwill will last forever. It won't. They've already ratcheted up the ads to a level where regular users are complaining.
Because it makes you an accomplice in a crime? I mean, it's not like these things slipped through the system: you were alerted to them, you took an action, you claim you reviewed them, and that you are fine with them. That is basically a statement that you are fine with being complicit in a scam.
Would seem to me that scammy adds negatively impact the reputation of your product. Makes it easier for a competitor to gain traction "I rather use Y, much safer and more reliable than YouTube".
They're all like that. A whole back I reported an obvious real estate scam using Wayne Gretzky and some Blue Jays player (I'm in Canada). The reply was it didn't break any policy.
When ads are the primary source of revenue, there's zero incentive to police the platform
> (I'm in Canada) The reply was it didn't break any policy. When ads are the primary source of revenue, there's zero incentive to police the platform
TL;DR:
If you're a major on-line ad distributor like Google/Meta, and broadcast malicious ads to consumers, then you should be liable for them according to local laws just how TV and radio broadcasters are liable for the same thing.
Long argument:
Sure those ads don't break Youtube/Google's own internal policy (why would they, they're an ad company reporting to their shareholders), but what about breaking the nation's/Canada's policy on ads? I bet there might be some fines there to be handed out. Hear me out.
If such scams aren't legally allowed on licensed national TV and radio channels or printed media, otherwise the broadcasters and publishers would face crippling fines, then why do we as government agencies allow Youtube to get away with broadcasting these scams to its viewers?
Sure, Youtube is not a licensed TV broadcaster but maybe we should start regulating them partly as such, similarly how the EU's Digital Markets Act aims to fix current major digital gatekeepers and make them as compliant as physical markets.
I mean, one of the main reasons big-tech has reaped such insane profits is that the same regulations that apply to traditional physical businesses like brick and mortar markets and media broadcasters, did not apply to them because they operated on the unregulated Wild West that was the internet, while also extracting all the global profits that come from operating on such a global scale except with none of the costs assigned to local legal regulatory compliance that operating physical business have.
So now it's time to patch these digital loopholes and have big-tech operating in the ad space just as accountable as the rest of the businesses, considering their size, outreach and therefore influence on the gen-pop. Google's not a scrappy start-up anymore, they can definitely afford to police the ads they serve according to the local laws, considering their size, workforce, ML tech and profits. Same with Meta and their ad network.
For what it's worth, I've noticed a proliferation of scam ads on the radio over the past few years. Go to this website and get free cash now kind of stuff.
While I don't live in the US, my experience with advertising there while visiting Miami was pretty crazy to say the least.
I heard it before when playing GTA Vice City on the in game radio and thought it's just satire, but no, it's actually pretty accurate. "Ask your doctor..."
this could just as easily been pirate, or legitimate broadcast.
that would be a new take on scams, to use SDR to spoof a station, and broadcast scam materials as the big end of the funnel to a scam url.
If you're a major on-line ad distributor like Google/Meta, and broadcast malicious ads to consumers...
It's actually worse than that. If they were neutrally broadcasting, they'd at least have the argument that they were conceptually just a common carrier providing a neutral conduit between advertisers and consumers. But they are actively selecting which ads to present to which consumers---with respect to scam ads, they are preferentially sending scams to the people they believe are most likely to fall for them, and profiting as a result. They are not neutral conduits, but active participants in the underlying fraud.
Note that Section 230 only means they are not treated as a publisher or speaker of the fraudulent offer. That does not mean that they could not be held liable for an independent act in furtherance of the fraud, such as identifying vulnerable targets in collusion with the scammers and preferentially presenting the fraud to those targets.
Indeed, you're right, I missed that. Big-tech's targeted advertising tech makes their scam ads way more dangerous to the targeted individuals, than similar scams broadcasted blindly to gen-pop on radio and TV.
It's kind of like the difference between a WW2-era dumb bomb and a modern GPS & laser-guided smart bomb. Way more deadly at the same payload.
Why? There are lots of examples of people who knowingly do things to aid and abet a primary criminal offense getting charged as accessories. Fences, bookies, pimps, pushers, shills, etc. This isn't a new pattern, and certainly wouldn't be a new idea to an older judge.
Yep, it's a high interest rate phenomenon. Investors want to see profitability.
But it's also a problem unique to trillion dollar companies: finding growth. If you have a money printer of $280B per year, how do you find growth that moves the needle?
For new product development, you'd need to launch a product that brings in revenue of say $20B, otherwise it's just not that interesting.
Imagine how hard it is to launch a new product like that? If you'd have a billion users (which is absurdly hard for a new product), you'd then need to monetize them for $20 per year per user. In a saturated competitive environment where users don't want to pay.
Hence, the more common strategy is to turn some dials on the existing money printer. Just increase ads.
That's why FB's Metaverse bet wasn't crazy at all. You make $100B+, social media is stagnating, and you need a huge new revenue stream. They don't really exist. You have to go crazy on big bets.
Well, it's more of an interest rate change phenomenon.
All companies are currently overvalued by absurd amounts, but the computer-related ones have it dialed a few dozen notches above "absurd". Things became this way because of the zero interest rate (and the expectation that it was permanent), but it's not sustainable anymore.
A not terribly uncommon belief is that continuous growth (pick your metric) is the raison d'être of all entities operating in a capitalist society, and so achieving and maintaining some high level of profitability and then staying there means that you and your company are failing to do their job.
But "growth" is a moving and indulgent target. For some, increasing profits isn't the growth that matters. Rather, increasing the rate at which profits are increasing is the true metric. So even vastly increased profits can still be a form of failure that requires more actions be taken to wring more money out of the platform and its users.
A stable company that pays out their profits as dividends is reasonably valued at some x*profits.
A company that reinvests these profits in things which investors believe will result in growth is valued x*future_profits, which is much larger - so if the leadership of a 'growth company' would announce that they're now a 'stable company' just paying out dividends, they would destroy most of the stock value of their investors, and would be considered an absolute failure of that leadership, since everyone involved has a strong incentive to replace them with someone who can make it (at least in the eyes of public) a 'growth company' again, doubling or tripling its value for the same revenue.
There is incentive, but they don't realize it. I know that online ads are often enough scams, so I won't buy anything from those ads. I do have to take effort to ensure that they don't effect me anyway (hint from basic psychology: they do, but I can make that effect less). If they did some work to ensure ads were not scams - I've seen ads for a number of interesting things that I intentionally did not buy because odds it was a scam was too high.
You are almost irrelevant to the conversation. The scammers only need 100 people to believe them from the potentially millions of people who view their ad to make it profitable.
You're missing the GP's point. They're claiming that scam ads pollute the ad marketplace and drive away engagement. Why click on an ad, or even pay attention to it, if there's a good chance it's a scam? And why would advertisers pay for ads if consumers are not engaging with them?
Thus, Google has an incentive to keep the ad space free of scams - it makes Google users more valuable to advertisers.
GPs argument is the opposite of this: it's not about the scammers, but about the legit brands. The same way Pepsi doesn't want to get their ads shown over somebody discussing STDs or something of the sort, they probably also don't want to get their ads shown next to scams, since it makes the product kinda seem like a scam by association.
It also increases the cost of the ad, though, by introducing more buyer competition for the available slot. And a higher cost per available slot is good for the seller AND for the middlemen involved in the transaction.
Does it increase the cost of the ad? Or does it decrease the cost of ads because the larger number of legitimate products don't want to be there and so are not buying ads at all.
Well, I guess it might change. I witnessed an exchange between two women, one was saying she would consider buying something after she saw an ad on Instagram, the other one laughed, "but you know ads on Instagram are scams, don't you"?
So my guess is that even though scammers are still finding victims, the side effect is that more and more people are mentally equating ads with scams and the whole "industry" loses - both big brands ("is someone impersonating them, just like they usually do with famous people?") and small ones ("I've never heard of them, it's probably scam like the rest").
Supposedly all these metrics like "conversions" measure the amount of people convinced by ads.
But there's also the rumor floating around that all of these metrics are just hugely inflated, that these modern ads have in truth rates so miserable that a plain old billboard in the middle of nowhere would serve advertisers better, and that therefore the "modern WWW" is built on a foundation of lies, exagerations, and fake statistics.
Conversion is a great metric if an immediate purchase your goal, but that is only rarely the correct goal. When something else is the goal it is much harder to measure.
Most ads are about a future purchase. They need to measure not did you buy now from this ad, but did all the ads you saw across all platforms (YouTube, Facebook, radio, tv, billboards) make enough of a difference in your buying habits when you finally buy. This is hard to measure, but it is more important. Most people are not buying now from an ad, they are buying in the future.
Sometimes ads are about an image. Even if you cannot afford some luxury good, they may want to advertise so that you recognize it on someone else and think "that is a rich person".
The scams are a risk for some lawyer in some country suing YouTube. They bring in a lot of money now so YouTube is not interesting in policing them, but they are a risk that they will suddenly go away for legal reasons. which is why I don't understand why YouTube doesn't police them now - between the potential loss in court and the big companies staying away there is a lot of risk to YouTube.
Note too that if YouTube would police scam ads better they would have a better message to various countries that laws and legal action is not needed at all. Right now I'm shocked the EU hasn't put in place harsh laws about ads - if YouTube would police their own ads they could have a slightly less harsh policy in place and thus make it not worth while for the EU to pass the harsh law they don't like.
It's even worse: the incentive is to police the creators, not the advertisers. Youtube will bend over backwards for advertisers whose "brand safety" team doesn't want their product to appear next to a swear word, and demonetize/strike/etc those creators. But the ad content itself isn't policed nearly as relentlessly.
You'd think that creators making people want to use the site would be important, but unfortunately YouTube is a monopoly and is addictive, so content is more or less fungible from Google's perspective. If you aren't viewing ads on creator A's content, you'll probably be viewing them on creator B's content instead. It's not like other streaming services where there is real competition and losing particular content would make people go to competitors.
> You'd think that creators making people want to use the site would be important
YouTube's audience size and advertising metrics have long since gone through the point where individual creators or groups of them matter little. If a creator walks off the platform there are more who will fill the place, in search of potential monetisation, so youtube will still have somewhere to hang adverts off. An advertiser leaving is harder to replace than a content provider.
eBay has a similar flip some years ago: they realised that there was more value caring for buyers needs than sellers: sellers swarm in attracted by the number of buyers and are difficult to put off for long as there are often few other options, buyers need to feel safe to hand around.
It's quite obvious they either have advertiser problems or their ad serving algorithm sucks.
I get so many repeats in stuff I'm not interested in at all, and completely unrelated to what I watch.
I don't know if it's a matter of those ads bidding the highest or what. But YouTube's ability to show something I'm interested in is worse than even what the daytime TV ads were back in the day.
Twitter (when I downloaded my info, they were still called that) classified me as speaking three languages I know zero words of, and as having interests in several sports (I care for none); my YouTube ad experience is like yours; my Facebook experience today was about renouncing my US citizenship (I'm a British national); the Instagram ads are only marginally less bad — I do find myself liking them, but I have no idea what they're selling because what I get shown are all uplifting landscapes or cute animals with no sales pitch.
Edit: also, a friend of mine was just playing a game, advert popped up in a language neither of us could read. I had to open Google Translate just to find out it was Romanian and which button was "close" (and also to discover that it was an ad for "easy and fast international payments"?)
Youtube is indeed a monopoly -- but it's not actually addictive. Since they started this war against adblockers I have found that I can perfectly live without it.
When I absolutely would like to watch an informative video (for example, about how to fix something on my bike, etc.), I first try to open the video in a private window (with ublock on); if that also doesn't work I try to use yt-dlp.
But I have completely stopped mindlessly watching videos that are not the result of a search.
Youtube is definitely addictive to a large population of people. If you can live without it, the only thing we can infer is that it's not addictive to you.
This is a more scientifically accurate description. It’s not addictive in the sense that your brain craves it’s chemicals but it definitely is habit-forming, watching video after video after video on electric motors and their construction has sent me down rabbit holes. Software topics, talks, how to’s, engineering channels, gaming drivel, it’s definitely a habit.
Being addictive doesn't mean that that literally everyone who uses it will become addicted. Most people who use alcohol, or pain killers, or gamble can stop without much trouble; that doesn't mean that there aren't a subset of users who get dangerously addicted.
It's great that you're in the majority of people who aren't addicted to Youtube, but that doesn't mean everyone has the same experience that you do.
> Being addictive doesn't mean that that literally everyone who uses it will become addicted
Not everyone, sure, but a majority. People can get addicted to anything; yet we don't just call any activity addictive -- only those where most people have a hard time controlling their behavior.
I don't think watching youtube qualifies (not just being on your phone, or watching tv).
Congrats (kind of), but we can't view "addiciton" in a microcosm of 1. And regardless, addiction isn't the term I'd use to describe the problem. maybe more like all-encompassing.
But the real problem is that Youtube makes all this money but it still took a decade+ to start looking profitable. It's extremely hard to compete with them even if you somehow got over the network effects because it's hard to make money while also paying content creators. Google could do it because they could commoditize youtube's early unprofitability to their ads revenue.
Ideally, something like Netflix spawns and lets "amateur" content creators host as well, which solves many problems. But netflix doesn't seem interested and the few competitors doing that are still in the discovery phase.
In the Youtube economic model the advertisers are the customer and the creators are the vendors (the viewer is the product), so that actually makes sense and isn't really any different from any other business. The customer is king, and if a vendor pisses off a customer, that vendor is gone.
I do wonder, clearly there is a perverse incentive for YouTube to be less strict with ads, but is it also a question of availability? I've been paying for YouTube Premium, so haven't seen ads in a while, but before that I noticed that there was almost no variety in the ads. You just got the same three or four ads on repeat.
What I'm wondering is: Does YouTube not have enough quality advertisers? You'd think they'd turn away the scammers, because actual business doesn't want to be on the same platform as some shady "buy/sell gold" or similar. If they don't, is that because there's no money, or not enough honest business buying ads in a sufficient amount? Or is it that YouTube just makes more on the scams?
True, and it's so ironic when the situation reverses...
Of the ads that recently slipped through my adblockers, one was a xenophobic piece of Hungarian propaganda against illegal immigrants. It was shown in the middle of a Minecraft video (a game without binary gender); that was made by a disabled person; to people living in a city where ~50% of the population was born elsewhere. Google does have all of that context, and yet this is what their ad selection algorithm picks.
This is one among many reasons why I have absolutely zero moral reservations about blocking YouTube ads. (inb4 ad money: I do support creators directly, as my budget allows.)
Google doesn't care about the context, they care about who pays the most for the ad. Hungarian fascists have deep pockets[0] and are willing to spend shittons of money to make you watch lies about immigrants[1]. Most of that money is wasted, but if they can radicalize even one out of a million viewers, they won. So they pay loads for it.
Yes, this is the same math that scammers run on - because fascism is a scam category, alongside advanced-fee fraud, refund scammers, and fake tech support companies. Your grandpa thinks the immigrants are invading the country for the same reason he thinks he needs to wire $10,000 to the 'bank' of a Nigerian 'prince'.
also
> It was shown in the middle of a Minecraft video (a game without binary gender)
For the same reasons as above, the creator of Minecraft went from "I don't want gender in my game" to "all women are evil", because he isolated himself in an LA mansion and read nothing but Twitter. He also had a girlfriend he broke up with. This makes you vulnerable to being fed bullshit that agrees with you - in the same way that expecting a UPS package might make you vulnerable to clicking a fake UPS text that steals your login info. Either that, or Notch was a trans inclusive radical misogynist[2] the whole time!
Now, let's say you're a scammer. Your 1-in-a-million odds suck - but what if you could pay more money to find more vulnerable people to send texts to? Like, even if you went from paying $1 CPM[3] for 1-in-a-million odds to $10 CPM for 1-in-ten-thousand, which is mathematically identical, you still get an advantage because less people can see what you're trying to steal. Targeted advertising lets you do this[4], and for unrelated reasons, legitimate advertisers will pay more to target their ads to a smaller but more lucrative cohort as well. So Google inherently makes more money the more they build out tools for scammers to do their scamming.
You are perfectly in the right to block ads. I pay for YouTube Premium but I won't yell at anyone who uses uBlock Origin.
[0] To be clear, we don't know exactly where the money comes from, though I can guess either Russia or Saudi Arabia
[1] The core irony of fascism is that the most efficient way to demonize the other is to point out that the other also has a fascist wing. e.g. in America, Christofascists yell and scream that we need a Muslim ban to keep Islamofascist terrorists out.
[2] See also: James Somerton
[3] Cost per French thousand
[4] If you read between the lines I'm accusing Google for the last decade of democratic backsliding.
>because fascism is a scam category, alongside advanced-fee fraud, refund scammers, and fake tech support companies.
Facism or not, those heavy ad campaigns come from the most extreme ends of the spectrum. And the new age will adapt to new tech faster. It's no suprise this is the result of it all, especially when platforms can claim article 243 to prevent any litigation against them.
>For the same reasons as above, the creator of Minecraft went from "I don't want gender in my game" to "all women are evil", because he isolated himself in an LA mansion and read nothing but Twitter.
ehh, who knows. 10 years is a long time and the first statement was made some 8 years prior to the 2nd. Could be bad experiences IRL or on the net, or both. Could be wounds much much older than Minecraft coming up.
>You are perfectly in the right to block ads. I pay for YouTube Premium but I won't yell at anyone who uses uBlock Origin.
Google has plenty of money and adtech as a concept is the antithesis to how I operate (let's COMPLETELY TANK the performance of your web browsing because people will pay us to be hostile t the user. And then tank it more so we have proof that the user actually got successfully harassed).
But from a purely logical perspective, I don't like the argument of "google has bad ads, therefore I block all ads". That just doesn't track well.
The problem isn't just bad ads, it's ad targeting. Bad advertisers love targeting because it does surveillance work for them, at scale. If Google did not offer targeted advertising, bad advertising would be far less effective and easier to spot. In fact, we know this because after Apple turned ad tracking IDs into an opt-in affair, iPhone users suddenly stopped falling for scams as often.
> especially when platforms can claim article 243 to prevent any litigation against them
CDA Section 230 (or just "CDA 230"), and this actually isn't the reason why platforms get away with this shit. All CDA 230 says is that moderating your platform doesn't mean you're liable for defamation that you miss. This is because of a prior court case that litigated the opposite. The Wolf of Wall Street[0] sued two online services for not taking down speech he wanted to censor. One of them was ruled as not liable because they didn't take down anything; the other was ruled as liable because they took down something.
So taking away CDA 230 would do is turn every forum more moderated than 4chan into a censorship hellscape as rich people perpetually demanded any speech they didn't like be taken down, or worse, sued companies into oblivion for hosting your own speech. You would not be able to sue Google because they served you a fake Elon Musk crypto grift ad any more than you already are able to.
What you really want is to copypaste EU GDPR into US law. This would make ad targeting illegal, which thus would make scam advertising ineffective, because scams rely on surveillance in order to scale.
A channel I follow does ad reads in the middle of the show, and as such had to say “Say-bay-Day” when advertising a CBD product because YT would demonetize the video if they just pronounced it as one would pronounce “See-Bee-Dee”.
It’s wild that they couldn’t advertise a sponsor but YT allows scam ads to roll before their videos
Yep. I stopped bothering to report obvious scams on Facebook as any response I got was they didn't breach any standards (for others I got no response at all), yet I've had a comment removed because calling someone a numbskull was unduly rude/aggressive/whatever (I forget the exact complaint given).
For a while I added comments details why it was so obvious the scam posts were scams, but this has little effect as my comment would be quickly drowned out by the many “I got mine OK!” and “thanks!” comments that are presumably placed by compromised accounts. It also backfires: commenting, even to point out the scammyness, is interaction – that interaction tells the recommendation algorithms that I might want to see more of that sort of thing or worse that my friends/family would also.
For Facebook though, I understand why they want the scammers to continue using their platform. Every scammer that uses facebook is an active user, which is a KPI they very much want to keep high.
Twitter is the same. As an exercise in atrition, I've reported dozens of evidently fake accounts pushing the same scam ads (miracle cures and crypto investments mainly), not a single response aside from "We received your report".
In my experience, Twitter was more responsive to reports (even if still wanting) before Elon Musk bought it.
When the Irish Tánaiste (US VP equivalent) and former Taoiseach (President equivalent) has to go to court and looses when he tries to find out from google who is advertising using his identity you know the whole think is a sham that has to be protected at all costs, https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2023/12/06/tanai...
In contrast. A third party created a bogus profile of a global brand and began releasing unfavorable content as though they were the brand. The global brand leveraged their relationship with Google to shutdown the profile (which could be labeled as satirical). Google went on to provide the private account and contact info of the third party posting. It was discovered the third-party was a subcontractor/vendor to the global brand. The global brand shut down all work with the party and had them black-balled in their industry.
The Irish gov't wasn't spending enough ad dollars for Google to care.
Does either of you have a link, or screenshot? Hard to tell otherwise whether it was a scam ad promoting financial products online, or satire (that sounds dubious), or both.
> has to go to court and looses[sic] when he tries to find out from google who is advertising using his identity
I believe from the article that you linked that the case is still before the High Court and so he has not lost yet.
I wonder would the case have been better made as an instance of identity theft?
Also while you are accurate in saying that the Tánaiste is equivalent to the Vice President in U.S. terms, because they are the deputy head of government. The same being true with respect to Taoiseach. I would like to point out that they are not the same positions. While the U.S. President is commander in chief of the U.S. military, the Taoiseach is not the command in chief in Ireland – that falls to the Uachtarán (the President).
But then, it there is no incentive to police the platform, there should be sexual content in ads, and yet, I don't even remember seeing ads for vibrators or other "soft" adult stuff. I don't remember seeing ads for weapons either. There are scams, but not many obvious counterfeits.
To be fair, I block ads, so I don't see many, but the few times I don't have them blocked, they are usually the kind you see on TV: big brand products, blockbuster video games, etc... with the very occasional scam and maybe a few of these fake games. But nothing like what you get on shady sites like porn, torrents, etc... and email spam.
That's actually what I mean, YouTube polices ads based on how controversial it may be, it means they care. Probably because it may hurt their viewership, or drive off other advertisers.
And they don't seem to do it to comply with some laws, or making it more kid friendly since, as you said, sports betting gets a pass, even if it is absolutely "adult" and maybe even illegal in some countries. Obviously, scams are illegal too.
It just mean they think scams don't give them enough of a bad reputation to police against, which is weird do me, one would think that reputable brands wouldn't want to appear next to scammers.
There was a time before people called websites "platforms". A time before gigantic websites full of thousands of other people's uploaded files, where the websites are used for surveillance and advertising delivery. The operators of these mega websites, posing as so-called "tech" companies, argue they are providing a valuable "service" to web users, valued at a price of zero dollars. Truly they are only interested in providing a service to advertisers. If advertisers stop paying, the operators will be forced to scale back the surveillance as it's too expensive to host peoples' files for free. If people are paying for their own hosting, like they pay for internet access, then third party websites cannot claim ownership to access logs for peoples' files and other metadata that is useful for advertising.
Because they have enough money and data now to just obliterate any kind of serious competition. They only need to keep providing minimal value to actual users. That's why.
I remember seeing some ads that looked really scammy about getting free medical equipment from Medicare on OTA television for years.
Years later, it turned out I was right.
If you called those folks they'd patch you through to a dishonest doctor who would write you a prescription for something like a back brace, even if you didn't need it. If you did need some kind of medical equipment later you might find you couldn't get it paid for because you already got the benefit.
I wonder if ubiquitous exposure to that kind of crap has political implications.
That is, you see a scam on TV several times a day that is clearly a scam but the people who run the TV station don't see it is a scam, bureaucrats don't see it is a scam, politicians don't see a scam. Politicians seem out so out of it that they launch their campaign with something that sounds just like a spam phone call.
OTA stations in most dayparts in Syracuse almost exclusively run ads for things you don't pay for with your own money: personal injury lawyers, prescription drugs, and things you can get with government benefits. You do see an ad for a car dealer from time to time because if nobody bought cars you couldn't get hit by a car to call William Matar.
I wonder if watching that crap turns people into Republicans.
Next step is your local attorney general. (or whatever the equivalent position is in your company). They should be able to find plenty of things that have long been illegal about promoting scams. Of course will they do their job?
Fifty families' "politician doing their job" is one man's "strangling innovation with bureaucratic red tape", and even that one man knows he's full of shit.
But when that one man represent a hundred-billion dollar company, attorneys general seem to get very confused as to where their loyalty lies. It's unfortunate for the fifty families (and quite lucrative for the AGs and GGLs).
Hume argued the fine lines between logical vs analytical derivatives and while he had a firm stance, others didn't and still don't agree wholly.
Let's take his claim that reason does not stir emotions enough to cause moral actions. That's great and arguable, but why then would he immediately move to, reason can only excite our emotions if it informs us about the world.
That's a blatant and obvious contradiction.
His thinking leads to scenarios like his example of willful murder. According to him, the sole reason it's bad is our personal disapproval of it.
That's the truth Google doesn't want you to say because it hurts their business, less than half of the ads I see on YouTube are legal. They know about this and just keep the money.
And that's just the straight up illegal ones, if we also count the questionable ones, the share is higher.
Ironically Twitter/X, for all its recent criticism, comes out ahead on this stuff: at least there they get community notes saying it’s a scam fairly quickly
You cannot be serious. It is a daily meme that Twitter ads are all scams now because all of the legitimate advertisers are leaving. That's why it is an interesting, news-worthy event when a community note is attached to an ad.
I am serious! In an ideal world, Twitter/X would have more legitimate advertisers to keep the platform running, and also would have adequate content moderation that quickly got rid of the scams, through some combination of tech and human oversight. They are, and I am not debating that, doing pretty badly at that currently -- I get a few of the scam ads daily, ranging from misleading freemium games (sketchy) to sites faking local news publications and public figures to advertise financial scams (downright criminal fraud wherever you decide to draw that line).
But, looked at separately, allowing users to put notes under paid-for (!) ads pointing out issues with them is pretty remarkable. Tech gets a lot of flak for bowing to advertisers in the name of $$$, but here it is the users who have some power to set misleading ads straight, with zero influence by the advertiser in question. That is laudable, even if in an ideal world this would be unnecessary, or at least less load-bearing in terms of preventing fraud!
There's not just the scam ads but also fake livestreams, sometimes on hijacked channels with large numbers of subscribers. Earlier this year there was a big wave of fake "Tesla" channels prompting people to scan a QR code that led them to some malware infested site trying to steal crypto from them. It went on for weeks.
There needs to be accountability for platforms at some point. It's ludicrous that a company with the resources of Youtube can just ignore that much literal fraud.
Of the maybe 300 ads I've reported, I've only been confident that the one selling the real ghostgun was taken down, but the rest I usually see again in short order
...nor scammy AI generated videos. This morning I came across a bit clickbaity and alarmist netsec video in my feed. Watched it for a minute before I started to wonder why the otherwise completely natural voice said "asterisk" between all sentences. Then I realized it was narrating a markdown bullet list.
IIRC the worst example of this was Facebook declining to remove a reported scam ad featuring Martin Lewis (a well-known consumer advice guru in the UK, and an honest one) who had already launched a lawsuit against them for permitting scam ads using his image and secured a settlement where Facebook donated £3m to charity and promised to do better.
Which is probably a good example of Hanlon's law, because it's really in the interests of Facebook for their vetters dealing with reported ads to know who the guy that has the resources and inclination to sue them again when his likeness appears in ads on their platform, no matter how cynical their general policy on ad acceptance is.
I routinely see ads for fake medical treatments that they refuse to take these down when I report them despite the fact that the ads obviously violate Google's policies. So many of the ads on YouTube are for things that are obviously sketchy that when I see a new product I'm not familiar with for the first time in YouTube ad I just assume it is a scam.
It's crazy because YouTube has probably more information about the sort of products that I actually want to buy than probably any other company besides Shopify. About a quarter of what I watch are literally just product reviews. They have a ton of high-intent purchasing signal for reputable products, and instead they are showing me ads for trash. I know it doesn't have to be this way, because Instagram somehow manages to show me highly relevant ads for stuff that I've actually gone on to purchase after discovering there.
> They have a ton of high-intent purchasing signal for reputable products, and instead they are showing me ads for trash.
This shouldn't be surprising. Ad placement is based on who pays to be placed in front of certain audiences. It doesn't matter if you're really into hi-fi amplifiers if no hi-fi company placed ads for that audience segment or if the hi-fi companies were outspent by boner pill salesmen.
Google is not optimizing for relevance but for revenue.
All the more reason for me to block ads. If relevance were the optimizing metric, I might see ads for things I'm truly interested in, but if YouTube is only showing me the highest paying ads and it doesn't care how relevant those ads are to me, they are just noise I need to ignore or block.
Especially when they are mostly scams and trash paying to be in front of my eyeballs. I have no desire or obligation to be propagandized, tricked, or misled by bad ads just so I can watch a video I actually am interested in.
> despite the fact that the ads obviously violate Google's policies
There's no contradiction here. Google's policies exist primarily in service of keeping their platforms safe for advertisers. The ads aren't placed on other ads though, so there's no reason for them to stress much about maintaining the same quality in their ads as the content being monetized.
As for targeting, they're just optimizing for CPM. If advertisers for scammy junk pay more than advertisers for things you might like to buy, then you get what you see now. There's always another mark for the scams.
Your ad could follow another ad which might be scammy. If the concerns about an ad appearing next to controversial content that they do not want to be associated with is legit, then why would that not be a concern for following scammy ads as well?
I literally saw an ad that was telling me than an average penis is too small to please my partner. I watched just long enough to confirm that was the message because I could not believe it was that blatant, so I assume the pitch coming was some sort of penis enlargement scam, but I just couldn't watch farther. I don't have any real insecurity in that area, but I can imagine that in my younger days it could have been effective, and I imagine that it can be extremely effective on many men.
Google has come quite a long way from "don't be evil".
Product reviews are useless these days. Every single one they give a glowing review because there is this fear of alienating the manufacturer and not getting future product to review. I haven’t seen an actual critical review in years probably. They are all these ads with a layer of separation to fool you.
Yeah, it used to be bad enough. Now it’s terrible. Almost no reviews can be trusted now because the market power of reviewers has been eroded to the point where producers can and do treat any individual reviewer, and all of them in aggregate, as extensions of their own marketing departments. The powerless “reviewers” let this happen because if they go against the grain, they’ll be blacklisted and become even more irrelevant. I’m extremely selective these days about whose advice I place any trust in. I’ve found that I frequently wait on new products until they e been in real people’s hands for a bit and then search for their complaints.
I've gotten a few ones that told me that vision problems have nothing to do with your eyes. It said that the problem was entirely neurological, and if you keep trying to hide from the issue by wearing glasses, your family would put you in a nursing home. No, I'm not kidding. The "cure" they were selling was some sort of vitamin, which was certainly untested and unregulated. Truly awful stuff.
It may be extreme, but I think we need to pass legislation to make advertising networks civilly liable for fraud facilitated by their services. Google will change its tune quickly when it's their wallet on the line. As a bonus, this also provides a restitution path for victims (most of these frauds are run overseas, so the perpetrators are out of reach of the justice system).
I don't mind the antagonistic method today since I will NEVER accept the idea that an ad is acceptable. The law you propose would help weaken advertising and that would make me happy. Apple killing targeted ads also made it worst.
For some reason, the acceptable ads program from eyeo led them to allow some of the worst, chumboxy paid content - as far as I remember.
Coincidentally, the effort was paid for by the very same companies that ended up on the whitelist. From the outside, at least, this gave the impression that the whitelisting was simply paid for and covered up by a fig leaf process.
I haven't checked in a while, but that program always struck me as deeply problematic.
Today, that no longer matters, as ublock origin has emerged as a time-tested, no-compromise, user-choice content blocking solution.
Google would respond by removing your country from using YouTube.
Then it would be up to your country to call their bluff. Who know whether they would or not. Google held out for longer than I thought they would on the Canada link laws. Ultimately, Google would give in and reopen YouTube, but how long would it take and would people give up YouTube for several months while wait for governments to battle Google facilitating fraud?
As importantly, would peertube (or others) grow enough? Content is the biggest problem I have with peertube, so if Canada was forced out of youtube content providers might jump to peertube in large enough numbers that I can as well.
I keep getting an ad which claims to be the "Tesla of heaters" it even shows the tesla logo when they say this. If anything I am surprised that Elon is not suing them (youtube) just for fun (given the problems he is having with ads).
If anything it would be an easy way for him to publicly show that scammy ads are a global problem and not just an X issue. Although I think it can be solved in a nanosecond if there was enough will.
Got that one as well a bunch of time with 2 fake dutch inventors. Reported it, got denied because Youtube thinks it's fine to promote a scam like that.
Many Google services in India openly promote/advertise astrologers and other related scams. This always leaves a bad taste in my mouth even if it legal.
Fake Elon Musk crypto/investment scams are like 60% of the ads I get, it's atrocious. I report every single one but it's tireing...and YouTube wants me to disable my adblocker? F*ck you!
Or when the Israel/Hamas war broke out, the number of propaganda ads from Israel/the IDF was outright disturbing. Most of them spewing the nonsense of Israel being "the holy ones" and they are fighting the "evil animals". Just repugnant rhetoric.
As it turns out there is a whole category in YouTubes ad system for Get-Rich-Quick schemes, as detailed out in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkhGJUTW3ag&t=1031s (timestamped at the relevant time).
Just today I saw my elderly father click on a YouTube ad link for a crypto scam copying Swedish televisions web layout he was reading it and I saw it at the corner of my eye. He has adblock installed, he disabled it because of the terms of service popup by YouTube. What is he supposed to do, create a google account and get premium instead? How about having safe ads so he doesn't have to figure out YouTube premium?
Yes, but as of the last couple months. YouTube and ad blockers have been in a constant cat and mouse game where YouTube blocks users with an AD blocker from viewing content at all, until your ad blocker updates with new rules to circumvent that blocking. Trivial for you and I maybe, but less so for someone the GP described as “elderly”
Because YouTube takes money deliberately from criminals an ad supported version of Netflix would hardly have Get-Rich-Quick schemes advertised which you need to pay to avoid. Make no mistake, I've seen criminal scammer ads on YouTube.
I dislike ads. But when I do see them, I'd prefer they were relevant to my interests. I might order an ADF4377 evaluation board, but I'm not going to be buying any feminine hygiene products or timeshares in Phoenix.
So as far as I'm concerned, they can spy all they want. That horse left the stable years ago anyway. Just don't waste my time with ads on YouTube, and we won't have any beef. So far Google has held up their end of the bargain; we'll see if that remains true going forward.
Nice moving the goalposts! I wasn’t talking about the types of ads you see, I was specifically addressing the absolute bullshit claim that “if you pay, you are no longer the product”, which is 100% demonstrably bullshit.
Secondly, paying for premium doesn’t in any capacity stop you from seeing scam ads in the sharing networks Google powers.
Given that other platforms are already showing ads for their paid tiers, it is not a matter of “if”, but “when” for YouTube.
I'll type slowly this time to make it easier to understand: I don't care about ads on other sites, I only care about avoiding them on YouTube, and YouTube Premium currently works fine for that.
It's OK if they "spy" on me to keep the other ads relevant, but that's not the subject of this thread.
The point is that the claim that “paying for premium means you’re no longer the product” is absolutely, and demonstrably bullshit.
Now you’re just giving money to Google for you to be the product, with a side benefit of (currently) not seeing Google ads.
This it going to change within 16 months anyway, as Google shifts away from broad spectrum premium towards premium having different benefits, and you’ll have to have individual paid subscriptions to remove ads for specific users (not unlike twitch, where paying for prime no longer removes ads).
> I was specifically addressing the absolute bullshit claim that “if you pay, you are no longer the product”, which is 100% demonstrably bullshit.
Right, you are never "product" in the first place. You are either paying user or a supplier of product, both of which are providing something of value to the company in exchange for what they provide you. The "product" witticism is a bad presentation of the problem, both mistaking the source of distinction (presenting it as pay vs. not-pay) and the nature of the issue (presenting it as product vs. customer.) It's related to another overused and misleading statement, the idea that "the customer is always right" is a general principle (when, in fact, it very much is not and businesses actively work to drive out undesirable paying customers, and strategically neglect the particular interest of others, all the time.)
The real issue is that if you are a small, replaceable fraction of a broad set of people from whom a firm can get the same thing of value -- whether its attention to ads, or a small monthly payment, or whatever -- there is very little reason for the company to expend effort catering to things that will keep you in particular (rather than the broad group as a whole) happy and willing to supply the thing of value in question, and if you are part of a particularly demanding subset of that group, placing a high demand on resources but from which the firm is not able to extract greater value by market segmentation, then the firm is quite likely to not only not want to expend much to satisfy you, but is likely to actively wish to drive you off as a customer.
The real issue is that you are a commodity vendor seeking to influence a large buyer (or a commoditized purchaser trying to influence a large seller), not that you are "product" or that you aren't "paying money".
I mean, you can see it that way, or you can realize that paying the mafia protection money actually is a fantastic way to keep both of your legs in working order.
> Paying for a product instead of being the product.
You're still the product. You think they aren't still collecting info on what you watch and associating that with your google account for cross-marketing elsewhere on the web?
To the extent that it is relevant to what I was replying to, you absolutely can opt out of "collecting info on what you watch and associating that with your google account for cross-marketing elsewhere on the web".
I piggyback on a friend's account, for a small fee, so likewise.
I also run pi-hole at home, because while I understand the need for ads, I'm done with 23 ads, 15 flyouts, 1 video that will play in the corner until the end of time even though you obviously scrolled past it with zero intention of viewing it, 4 animated gifs, a pop-up chatbot window, etc. etc. etc.
We’re going to get to the section of this video about ad-free YouTube, but first, a message from our sponsor, VPNOfTheMonth! <insert some scare mongering directly into the video stream that premium doesn’t remove>
You can skip past those pretty easily. I let them play for creators I actually like, who also tend to pick less scummy sponsored ads. Some of them even make the sponsored content really funny or personal to them.
You'll find the same quality spectrum. At least I know that the creator is seeing more of the ad dollars.
that is a rather cynical and unconstructive perspective
1. sponsored ads are only in a minority of videos, so largely the platform is actually ad-free. I'm paying to not have YT ads, I did not expect my subscription to eliminate sponsored ads. Where is the lie?
2. paid YT is categorically a better experience and worth every penny, even with the occasional sponsored ad, which again, can be skipped
3. YMMV, it really depends on the content you chose to consume. I stay away from the most viewed creators, it's typically low quality
4. Direct payments for a product is a much healthier model than the ad supported model, imho.
It is also hilarious that the FBI also recommends using ad block. I might be sorry for smaller companies but Google contributed to this scams and now even the FBI is against their scheme.
You’re still the product. YouTube screwed up their monetization scheme so badly that any content worth watching still inserts its own non-Google ads directly into the videos. So I would be paying to remove ads and…still see ads.
On youtube the content was uploaded by creators on the understanding it would be freely accessible to everyone.
Additionally it's a matter of user control and rights. They don't get to tell the user what their user agent does and what content it should fetch or display to the user or what code it should run.
It's their website, but it's my device.
The next step is for youtube to require you to watch the ad and stop playing if you look away.
> On youtube the content was uploaded by creators on the understanding it would be freely accessible to everyone.
A lot of YouTube creators make their content for money. YouTube in this case is the layer between creator and watcher, making sure they get paid. Wether that is by ad money or subscription money. Before that, things were much more difficult for video creators.
> The next step is for youtube to require you to watch the ad and stop playing if you look away.
The next step for YouTube is hopefully to put the entire site behind a login and remove all ads.
Video creators can also move to other platforms, or make other platforms that are subscribe only. It only takes a very small percentage of channels currently on YouTube to make for a high quality streaming platform that covers the interests and needs of a large part of potential subscribers.
You are not a shopkeeper being extorted for protection money, you are a (unwelcome) shop customer demanding things you don't want to pay for while being free to go to another place.
You haven't followed my argument, so I'll break it down for you. There are ads on YouTube that prey on vulnerable people as per the original post. I came with a small clip in a larger video that YouTube has these categorized so creators can opt-out of these most likely predatory ads. And on that I had an anecdote of my elderly father having ones these predatory ads presented to him, after he was asked a while ago to turn off ad-blocking by YouTube. I'm not the shop customer here, my elderly father is which he has done what was asked of him. I'm simply unwilling to pay for a service so I can opt-out predatory ads on behalf of my father. YouTube does business with organized criminals and is demanding money not to present to the predatory lies of organized criminals. I refuse to pay and demand that YouTube stops taking the criminals money and presenting them as ads.
Yeah except the real situation is that you have the "choice" of going to the one and only shop that sells <thing> and you are given the "choice" of paying extra, or be forced to sit through a timeshare pitch before you can even pick the thing off the shelf.
Except the timeshare pitch is hyper-personalized specifically for you based on your entire internet history everywhere and is designed to yield the maximum chance of manipulating you into falling for it.
As a consumer you have easy options to block out the sales pitch, except the store who has a monopoly on the thing you want is now trying to scare users into disabling their ad blockers. The users that do this are disproportionately more likely to be less versed in how these things work and are thus more likely to fall for the scam.
Yes, it's a protection racket. It's just got a funny hat on this time.
It is not the only shop in town. Vimeo, Twitch, TikTok, Instagram Stories exist and compete with Youtube where their target audiences intersect. Just because you reeeeealy want to watch that particular video that is only on Youtube and you reeeeealy don't want to pay for Premium doesn't change that fact (same as if you wanted some Amazon Essentials shoes that are only available from Amazon and have a very good price doesn't mean there are no other places where you can buy pair of shoes, albeit with arguably worse price-quality ratio).
Last I checked (at least here in the US) - the family plan requires all family members to be living in the same physical household and there is some sort of geolocation check that enforces that rule. I'm divorced and my son goes back and forth between my and his mother's house so I can't upgrade to the family plan and put him on it.
> What is he supposed to do, create a google account and get premium instead?
Yes? I've mostly quit watching YouTube (and really a lot of media) because the shear amount of it and the number of predatory dark patterns have just gotten to be too much for me (it's possible that I'm overly sensitive in some way). But if it's important to him, then maybe it's worth paying some money for the experience. Personally I'm trying to get back into reading/audiobooks.
So I should just give up, have a talk about media habits with my parents and if they don't want to change, just hand YouTube the money? You freely admit that it is designed to be this bad and by giving them money actually just rewards their shitty behavior. I gave an example of a video showing how creators on YouTube can select which ads to show. Get-Rich-Quick is a category, YouTube could just take the decision to not carry those ads anymore and enforce violations as harshly as copyright strikes.
Wanted to point out that “Just take the decision to not carry those ads” isn’t as easy when you’re at YT scale. Not excusing them but I think we all understand the challenges of content moderation at scale for organic content — now amplify that for paid content where the incentives get even thornier.
Yes YT should invest more in review and policy work — but it’s a forever expanding cost with no silver bullet.
I appreciate there’s a least a price and option for ads-free.
The scale of paid content is much smaller than the general youtube scale. And they already have a categorization for it. Of course you could lie about the categorization of what you pay to YouTube to show unsuspecting people, but at least you run the risk of giving YouTube money and not getting shown because you violated their advertising policy. It would change the whole economics of running scams through ads.
Not a valid reason. First, they can just charge the cost of ad review to the advertisers. Second, if they can’t do it without causing problems for innocent third-parties — the viewers — then they just can’t do it. We regulate all kinds of industries, no reason the fuck privacy for profit industry should be exempt.
I really do try not to be the perpetual downer here, but Google has nearly unlimited resources including psych PhDs on staff to influence peoples' behavior and I assume executives with black holes where their souls would normally be who are trying to satisfy that void with money, but can never do so.
I guess the best I can say is that it's about picking your battles.
Look I know I'm screaming in the wind here. It is a comment on the state of YouTube ads. It's not that I have an illusion that someone in the hierarchy of Google is going to read my comments and take decisions that improves the situation. It is a thought and opinion on the direction of what Google has become. And personally I'm reducing my reliance on google. Next year I'm starting move subscriptions and other things from my gmail mail account. I've gone back to firefox. Google Search has gotten terrible recently so I'm looking for alternatives. This is my personal choice and I just want to whine on the Internet on my way out.
You have my sympathy at least, and it's a good reminder that I probably need to get off gmail myself.
Famously, this is a place where FAANG employees have some representation, so I suspect that the comments do occasionally get read by people with at least some connection to the products. Increasingly, I wonder how they live with themselves; the older I get, the less any amount of money could get me to use psychological tricks on people in order to scam them.
Youtube clearly provides a valuable service one that is unique in world (moat or not). If you're concerned about rewarding bad behavior (scammy ads) doesn't it also make sense to factor rewarding good behavior (videos by anyone* on any topic imaginable)?
Install uBlock Origin on Firefox for him. Educate him not to click ads. Ever. If you emphasize long enough that clicking an ad can lose him his bank account and entire identity, it can sink in. I've spent years on this with my parents. "Yes, Dad, YouTube is out to get you, because they want money from advertisers, and they are happily selling your safety to advertisers."
I'm in my early 60's, I guess when I was young I'd have called me elderly. I however, have been a technologist since I was around 9 years old, got it from my Dad. I'd say most my age even if not into technology aren't averse to it or unaware of it. But, there are definitely some elderly who really don't get technology at all and there are some in their 20's who are the same way. Those individuals need to be protected. The onus should be on the corporation more than the individual; not solely on the individual.
No, the onus should be on the law, because corporations will do nothing "for th greater good" if they're not forced to do so. The onus is on the individual to help other individuals around them that need it, and on the individual to petition their law makers to do what needs to be done.
Putting the onus on the corporations is the one thing that's guaranteed, with a long and storied proven track record, of not working.
Even with adblock, I've had hijacked channels end up as the top search result. Most recently with the last SpaceX starship launch. Trying to find the livestream, I just searched SpaceX and the top hits were all fake channels with lots of subscribers, hosting the actual livestream, but with a big QR code to a crypto scam overlaid. It happens every time, with the same things, and has been reported many times. There's no way they don't know about it.
Really frustrating as folks can advertise that crap but, regulated cannabis is blocked. Heck, we can't even mention our product/protocols on these $BigCo sites or they'll kick us off forever! Trying to publish in the AppStore along side all that scam-ware -- nope, sorry can't have that deadly cannabis around here.
374 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 375 ms ] threadObviously nothing is forcing Google to deal with this in any way. But I wonder how could that work out for Google in the long run.
Victims of these scams should sue Google, Meta and any other big company knowingly participating in these kind of scams.
Really? I mean, they're getting paid by a scammer who uses provably fake and deceptive content to prey on its victims; they have been alerted to the situation, they claim they reviewed it, and that they think it's fine. What could go wrong?
That said, there seems to be no legal way for a big Czech company to go neither against Google or the scammers, otherwise this would have been already resolved. CEZ (one of the companies being impersonated by the scammers here) made a press release about this almost 2 years ago (references are in Czech):
https://www.cez.cz/cs/pro-media/tiskove-zpravy/klamave-rekla... https://www.cez.cz/cs/podvodna-reklama
Also I think this should be a two way street. If content creators need to moderate their content lest they be slapped to death by Youtube to help the advertisers, advertisers also have a responsibility to ensure their advertisements do not cause issue for content creators and/or viewers.
It's unclear who currently runs Youtube, but they have been making bad decision after bad decision. Youtube is now extremely hostile which goes against the values it once held when it first grew.
Big advertiser beeing a top company like Coca Cola.
I have seen a few ads for those things on YouTube, but it isn't as constant as other forms of media.
* Risk of regulators taking an interest, because it shows the ad industry can't self-regulate.
* Risk of regulators taking an interest, because their voters are getting scammed.
* Risk of regulators taking an interest, because celebrities complain.
* Risk of regulators taking an interest, because deepfakes.
Garbage ads damage a brand. Google doesn't do anything because they think Youtube's goodwill will last forever. It won't. They've already ratcheted up the ads to a level where regular users are complaining.
When ads are the primary source of revenue, there's zero incentive to police the platform
TL;DR:
If you're a major on-line ad distributor like Google/Meta, and broadcast malicious ads to consumers, then you should be liable for them according to local laws just how TV and radio broadcasters are liable for the same thing.
Long argument:
Sure those ads don't break Youtube/Google's own internal policy (why would they, they're an ad company reporting to their shareholders), but what about breaking the nation's/Canada's policy on ads? I bet there might be some fines there to be handed out. Hear me out.
If such scams aren't legally allowed on licensed national TV and radio channels or printed media, otherwise the broadcasters and publishers would face crippling fines, then why do we as government agencies allow Youtube to get away with broadcasting these scams to its viewers?
Sure, Youtube is not a licensed TV broadcaster but maybe we should start regulating them partly as such, similarly how the EU's Digital Markets Act aims to fix current major digital gatekeepers and make them as compliant as physical markets.
I mean, one of the main reasons big-tech has reaped such insane profits is that the same regulations that apply to traditional physical businesses like brick and mortar markets and media broadcasters, did not apply to them because they operated on the unregulated Wild West that was the internet, while also extracting all the global profits that come from operating on such a global scale except with none of the costs assigned to local legal regulatory compliance that operating physical business have.
So now it's time to patch these digital loopholes and have big-tech operating in the ad space just as accountable as the rest of the businesses, considering their size, outreach and therefore influence on the gen-pop. Google's not a scrappy start-up anymore, they can definitely afford to police the ads they serve according to the local laws, considering their size, workforce, ML tech and profits. Same with Meta and their ad network.
I heard it before when playing GTA Vice City on the in game radio and thought it's just satire, but no, it's actually pretty accurate. "Ask your doctor..."
It's actually worse than that. If they were neutrally broadcasting, they'd at least have the argument that they were conceptually just a common carrier providing a neutral conduit between advertisers and consumers. But they are actively selecting which ads to present to which consumers---with respect to scam ads, they are preferentially sending scams to the people they believe are most likely to fall for them, and profiting as a result. They are not neutral conduits, but active participants in the underlying fraud.
Note that Section 230 only means they are not treated as a publisher or speaker of the fraudulent offer. That does not mean that they could not be held liable for an independent act in furtherance of the fraud, such as identifying vulnerable targets in collusion with the scammers and preferentially presenting the fraud to those targets.
It's kind of like the difference between a WW2-era dumb bomb and a modern GPS & laser-guided smart bomb. Way more deadly at the same payload.
It would be naive to think a company could behave otherwise in the long term.
But it's also a problem unique to trillion dollar companies: finding growth. If you have a money printer of $280B per year, how do you find growth that moves the needle?
For new product development, you'd need to launch a product that brings in revenue of say $20B, otherwise it's just not that interesting.
Imagine how hard it is to launch a new product like that? If you'd have a billion users (which is absurdly hard for a new product), you'd then need to monetize them for $20 per year per user. In a saturated competitive environment where users don't want to pay.
Hence, the more common strategy is to turn some dials on the existing money printer. Just increase ads.
That's why FB's Metaverse bet wasn't crazy at all. You make $100B+, social media is stagnating, and you need a huge new revenue stream. They don't really exist. You have to go crazy on big bets.
Well, it's more of an interest rate change phenomenon.
All companies are currently overvalued by absurd amounts, but the computer-related ones have it dialed a few dozen notches above "absurd". Things became this way because of the zero interest rate (and the expectation that it was permanent), but it's not sustainable anymore.
Google's P/E is 25.6
S&P 500 is at 24.59
DJIA is at 26.35
There are exactly 4 'computer' companies among the 30 companies that make up the DJIA.
If you're looking for overvalued, that would be Tesla at 70.3, or Amazon (Who reinvests aggressively) at 75.6.
But "growth" is a moving and indulgent target. For some, increasing profits isn't the growth that matters. Rather, increasing the rate at which profits are increasing is the true metric. So even vastly increased profits can still be a form of failure that requires more actions be taken to wring more money out of the platform and its users.
A company that reinvests these profits in things which investors believe will result in growth is valued x*future_profits, which is much larger - so if the leadership of a 'growth company' would announce that they're now a 'stable company' just paying out dividends, they would destroy most of the stock value of their investors, and would be considered an absolute failure of that leadership, since everyone involved has a strong incentive to replace them with someone who can make it (at least in the eyes of public) a 'growth company' again, doubling or tripling its value for the same revenue.
You are not grasping the scale of the matter.
Thus, Google has an incentive to keep the ad space free of scams - it makes Google users more valuable to advertisers.
So my guess is that even though scammers are still finding victims, the side effect is that more and more people are mentally equating ads with scams and the whole "industry" loses - both big brands ("is someone impersonating them, just like they usually do with famous people?") and small ones ("I've never heard of them, it's probably scam like the rest").
I'm exactly the same. I will try to go directly to websites instead of clicking on adds from search results to avoid the PPC charge too.
If the people making ads can be influenced by ads, why would they ever stop making them? It works for them, doesn't it?
But there's also the rumor floating around that all of these metrics are just hugely inflated, that these modern ads have in truth rates so miserable that a plain old billboard in the middle of nowhere would serve advertisers better, and that therefore the "modern WWW" is built on a foundation of lies, exagerations, and fake statistics.
Choose your poison.
Most ads are about a future purchase. They need to measure not did you buy now from this ad, but did all the ads you saw across all platforms (YouTube, Facebook, radio, tv, billboards) make enough of a difference in your buying habits when you finally buy. This is hard to measure, but it is more important. Most people are not buying now from an ad, they are buying in the future.
Sometimes ads are about an image. Even if you cannot afford some luxury good, they may want to advertise so that you recognize it on someone else and think "that is a rich person".
What is the policy, as long as you pay and don't do anything outright offensive, it's all fair game?
¹ At least I wouldn't if I was doing ad campaigns of a big company, but maybe I'm naive...
Note too that if YouTube would police scam ads better they would have a better message to various countries that laws and legal action is not needed at all. Right now I'm shocked the EU hasn't put in place harsh laws about ads - if YouTube would police their own ads they could have a slightly less harsh policy in place and thus make it not worth while for the EU to pass the harsh law they don't like.
YouTube's audience size and advertising metrics have long since gone through the point where individual creators or groups of them matter little. If a creator walks off the platform there are more who will fill the place, in search of potential monetisation, so youtube will still have somewhere to hang adverts off. An advertiser leaving is harder to replace than a content provider.
eBay has a similar flip some years ago: they realised that there was more value caring for buyers needs than sellers: sellers swarm in attracted by the number of buyers and are difficult to put off for long as there are often few other options, buyers need to feel safe to hand around.
I get so many repeats in stuff I'm not interested in at all, and completely unrelated to what I watch.
I don't know if it's a matter of those ads bidding the highest or what. But YouTube's ability to show something I'm interested in is worse than even what the daytime TV ads were back in the day.
Twitter (when I downloaded my info, they were still called that) classified me as speaking three languages I know zero words of, and as having interests in several sports (I care for none); my YouTube ad experience is like yours; my Facebook experience today was about renouncing my US citizenship (I'm a British national); the Instagram ads are only marginally less bad — I do find myself liking them, but I have no idea what they're selling because what I get shown are all uplifting landscapes or cute animals with no sales pitch.
Edit: also, a friend of mine was just playing a game, advert popped up in a language neither of us could read. I had to open Google Translate just to find out it was Romanian and which button was "close" (and also to discover that it was an ad for "easy and fast international payments"?)
Youtube is indeed a monopoly -- but it's not actually addictive. Since they started this war against adblockers I have found that I can perfectly live without it.
When I absolutely would like to watch an informative video (for example, about how to fix something on my bike, etc.), I first try to open the video in a private window (with ublock on); if that also doesn't work I try to use yt-dlp.
But I have completely stopped mindlessly watching videos that are not the result of a search.
There's nothing necessary about youtube.
Youtube is definitely addictive to a large population of people. If you can live without it, the only thing we can infer is that it's not addictive to you.
It's great that you're in the majority of people who aren't addicted to Youtube, but that doesn't mean everyone has the same experience that you do.
Not everyone, sure, but a majority. People can get addicted to anything; yet we don't just call any activity addictive -- only those where most people have a hard time controlling their behavior.
I don't think watching youtube qualifies (not just being on your phone, or watching tv).
But the real problem is that Youtube makes all this money but it still took a decade+ to start looking profitable. It's extremely hard to compete with them even if you somehow got over the network effects because it's hard to make money while also paying content creators. Google could do it because they could commoditize youtube's early unprofitability to their ads revenue.
Ideally, something like Netflix spawns and lets "amateur" content creators host as well, which solves many problems. But netflix doesn't seem interested and the few competitors doing that are still in the discovery phase.
The economics of supply and demand disagree with you.
A lot more people want to be creators, than there is money in the ecosystem to support them.
If you want to hold platforms responsible for scams being advertised on them, you're going to need to rewrite a lot of law.
What I'm wondering is: Does YouTube not have enough quality advertisers? You'd think they'd turn away the scammers, because actual business doesn't want to be on the same platform as some shady "buy/sell gold" or similar. If they don't, is that because there's no money, or not enough honest business buying ads in a sufficient amount? Or is it that YouTube just makes more on the scams?
Of the ads that recently slipped through my adblockers, one was a xenophobic piece of Hungarian propaganda against illegal immigrants. It was shown in the middle of a Minecraft video (a game without binary gender); that was made by a disabled person; to people living in a city where ~50% of the population was born elsewhere. Google does have all of that context, and yet this is what their ad selection algorithm picks.
This is one among many reasons why I have absolutely zero moral reservations about blocking YouTube ads. (inb4 ad money: I do support creators directly, as my budget allows.)
Yes, this is the same math that scammers run on - because fascism is a scam category, alongside advanced-fee fraud, refund scammers, and fake tech support companies. Your grandpa thinks the immigrants are invading the country for the same reason he thinks he needs to wire $10,000 to the 'bank' of a Nigerian 'prince'.
also
> It was shown in the middle of a Minecraft video (a game without binary gender)
For the same reasons as above, the creator of Minecraft went from "I don't want gender in my game" to "all women are evil", because he isolated himself in an LA mansion and read nothing but Twitter. He also had a girlfriend he broke up with. This makes you vulnerable to being fed bullshit that agrees with you - in the same way that expecting a UPS package might make you vulnerable to clicking a fake UPS text that steals your login info. Either that, or Notch was a trans inclusive radical misogynist[2] the whole time!
Now, let's say you're a scammer. Your 1-in-a-million odds suck - but what if you could pay more money to find more vulnerable people to send texts to? Like, even if you went from paying $1 CPM[3] for 1-in-a-million odds to $10 CPM for 1-in-ten-thousand, which is mathematically identical, you still get an advantage because less people can see what you're trying to steal. Targeted advertising lets you do this[4], and for unrelated reasons, legitimate advertisers will pay more to target their ads to a smaller but more lucrative cohort as well. So Google inherently makes more money the more they build out tools for scammers to do their scamming.
You are perfectly in the right to block ads. I pay for YouTube Premium but I won't yell at anyone who uses uBlock Origin.
[0] To be clear, we don't know exactly where the money comes from, though I can guess either Russia or Saudi Arabia
[1] The core irony of fascism is that the most efficient way to demonize the other is to point out that the other also has a fascist wing. e.g. in America, Christofascists yell and scream that we need a Muslim ban to keep Islamofascist terrorists out.
[2] See also: James Somerton
[3] Cost per French thousand
[4] If you read between the lines I'm accusing Google for the last decade of democratic backsliding.
Facism or not, those heavy ad campaigns come from the most extreme ends of the spectrum. And the new age will adapt to new tech faster. It's no suprise this is the result of it all, especially when platforms can claim article 243 to prevent any litigation against them.
>For the same reasons as above, the creator of Minecraft went from "I don't want gender in my game" to "all women are evil", because he isolated himself in an LA mansion and read nothing but Twitter.
ehh, who knows. 10 years is a long time and the first statement was made some 8 years prior to the 2nd. Could be bad experiences IRL or on the net, or both. Could be wounds much much older than Minecraft coming up.
>You are perfectly in the right to block ads. I pay for YouTube Premium but I won't yell at anyone who uses uBlock Origin.
Google has plenty of money and adtech as a concept is the antithesis to how I operate (let's COMPLETELY TANK the performance of your web browsing because people will pay us to be hostile t the user. And then tank it more so we have proof that the user actually got successfully harassed).
But from a purely logical perspective, I don't like the argument of "google has bad ads, therefore I block all ads". That just doesn't track well.
> especially when platforms can claim article 243 to prevent any litigation against them
CDA Section 230 (or just "CDA 230"), and this actually isn't the reason why platforms get away with this shit. All CDA 230 says is that moderating your platform doesn't mean you're liable for defamation that you miss. This is because of a prior court case that litigated the opposite. The Wolf of Wall Street[0] sued two online services for not taking down speech he wanted to censor. One of them was ruled as not liable because they didn't take down anything; the other was ruled as liable because they took down something.
So taking away CDA 230 would do is turn every forum more moderated than 4chan into a censorship hellscape as rich people perpetually demanded any speech they didn't like be taken down, or worse, sued companies into oblivion for hosting your own speech. You would not be able to sue Google because they served you a fake Elon Musk crypto grift ad any more than you already are able to.
What you really want is to copypaste EU GDPR into US law. This would make ad targeting illegal, which thus would make scam advertising ineffective, because scams rely on surveillance in order to scale.
[0] As in, the guy the movie was about
It’s wild that they couldn’t advertise a sponsor but YT allows scam ads to roll before their videos
Yep. I stopped bothering to report obvious scams on Facebook as any response I got was they didn't breach any standards (for others I got no response at all), yet I've had a comment removed because calling someone a numbskull was unduly rude/aggressive/whatever (I forget the exact complaint given).
For a while I added comments details why it was so obvious the scam posts were scams, but this has little effect as my comment would be quickly drowned out by the many “I got mine OK!” and “thanks!” comments that are presumably placed by compromised accounts. It also backfires: commenting, even to point out the scammyness, is interaction – that interaction tells the recommendation algorithms that I might want to see more of that sort of thing or worse that my friends/family would also.
In my experience, Twitter was more responsive to reports (even if still wanting) before Elon Musk bought it.
The Irish gov't wasn't spending enough ad dollars for Google to care.
I believe from the article that you linked that the case is still before the High Court and so he has not lost yet.
I wonder would the case have been better made as an instance of identity theft?
Also while you are accurate in saying that the Tánaiste is equivalent to the Vice President in U.S. terms, because they are the deputy head of government. The same being true with respect to Taoiseach. I would like to point out that they are not the same positions. While the U.S. President is commander in chief of the U.S. military, the Taoiseach is not the command in chief in Ireland – that falls to the Uachtarán (the President).
Tánaiste = Deputy Prime Minister
Taoiseach = Prime Minister
Uachtarán = President
And with the promise of impressions (or whatever the equivalent of eyeballs is nowadays) there's little incentive to police the platform for bots.
To be fair, I block ads, so I don't see many, but the few times I don't have them blocked, they are usually the kind you see on TV: big brand products, blockbuster video games, etc... with the very occasional scam and maybe a few of these fake games. But nothing like what you get on shady sites like porn, torrents, etc... and email spam.
And they don't seem to do it to comply with some laws, or making it more kid friendly since, as you said, sports betting gets a pass, even if it is absolutely "adult" and maybe even illegal in some countries. Obviously, scams are illegal too.
It just mean they think scams don't give them enough of a bad reputation to police against, which is weird do me, one would think that reputable brands wouldn't want to appear next to scammers.
Years later, it turned out I was right.
If you called those folks they'd patch you through to a dishonest doctor who would write you a prescription for something like a back brace, even if you didn't need it. If you did need some kind of medical equipment later you might find you couldn't get it paid for because you already got the benefit.
I wonder if ubiquitous exposure to that kind of crap has political implications.
That is, you see a scam on TV several times a day that is clearly a scam but the people who run the TV station don't see it is a scam, bureaucrats don't see it is a scam, politicians don't see a scam. Politicians seem out so out of it that they launch their campaign with something that sounds just like a spam phone call.
OTA stations in most dayparts in Syracuse almost exclusively run ads for things you don't pay for with your own money: personal injury lawyers, prescription drugs, and things you can get with government benefits. You do see an ad for a car dealer from time to time because if nobody bought cars you couldn't get hit by a car to call William Matar.
I wonder if watching that crap turns people into Republicans.
But when that one man represent a hundred-billion dollar company, attorneys general seem to get very confused as to where their loyalty lies. It's unfortunate for the fifty families (and quite lucrative for the AGs and GGLs).
Shocking.. truly shocking.
If sarcasm makes fun of not expecting something, then it's normalizing that thing.
Hume argued the fine lines between logical vs analytical derivatives and while he had a firm stance, others didn't and still don't agree wholly.
Let's take his claim that reason does not stir emotions enough to cause moral actions. That's great and arguable, but why then would he immediately move to, reason can only excite our emotions if it informs us about the world. That's a blatant and obvious contradiction.
His thinking leads to scenarios like his example of willful murder. According to him, the sole reason it's bad is our personal disapproval of it.
Facts don’t give rise to values, the two are independent.
And that's just the straight up illegal ones, if we also count the questionable ones, the share is higher.
But, looked at separately, allowing users to put notes under paid-for (!) ads pointing out issues with them is pretty remarkable. Tech gets a lot of flak for bowing to advertisers in the name of $$$, but here it is the users who have some power to set misleading ads straight, with zero influence by the advertiser in question. That is laudable, even if in an ideal world this would be unnecessary, or at least less load-bearing in terms of preventing fraud!
Money, money, money.
There needs to be accountability for platforms at some point. It's ludicrous that a company with the resources of Youtube can just ignore that much literal fraud.
Which is probably a good example of Hanlon's law, because it's really in the interests of Facebook for their vetters dealing with reported ads to know who the guy that has the resources and inclination to sue them again when his likeness appears in ads on their platform, no matter how cynical their general policy on ad acceptance is.
It's crazy because YouTube has probably more information about the sort of products that I actually want to buy than probably any other company besides Shopify. About a quarter of what I watch are literally just product reviews. They have a ton of high-intent purchasing signal for reputable products, and instead they are showing me ads for trash. I know it doesn't have to be this way, because Instagram somehow manages to show me highly relevant ads for stuff that I've actually gone on to purchase after discovering there.
This shouldn't be surprising. Ad placement is based on who pays to be placed in front of certain audiences. It doesn't matter if you're really into hi-fi amplifiers if no hi-fi company placed ads for that audience segment or if the hi-fi companies were outspent by boner pill salesmen.
Google is not optimizing for relevance but for revenue.
Especially when they are mostly scams and trash paying to be in front of my eyeballs. I have no desire or obligation to be propagandized, tricked, or misled by bad ads just so I can watch a video I actually am interested in.
There's no contradiction here. Google's policies exist primarily in service of keeping their platforms safe for advertisers. The ads aren't placed on other ads though, so there's no reason for them to stress much about maintaining the same quality in their ads as the content being monetized.
As for targeting, they're just optimizing for CPM. If advertisers for scammy junk pay more than advertisers for things you might like to buy, then you get what you see now. There's always another mark for the scams.
Google has come quite a long way from "don't be evil".
I don't mind the antagonistic method today since I will NEVER accept the idea that an ad is acceptable. The law you propose would help weaken advertising and that would make me happy. Apple killing targeted ads also made it worst.
Sports gambling also makes the environment worst.
Coincidentally, the effort was paid for by the very same companies that ended up on the whitelist. From the outside, at least, this gave the impression that the whitelisting was simply paid for and covered up by a fig leaf process.
I haven't checked in a while, but that program always struck me as deeply problematic.
Today, that no longer matters, as ublock origin has emerged as a time-tested, no-compromise, user-choice content blocking solution.
The acceptable ads was a pay to win thing and very quickly devolved into exactly the kind of cesspool you'd expect
Then it would be up to your country to call their bluff. Who know whether they would or not. Google held out for longer than I thought they would on the Canada link laws. Ultimately, Google would give in and reopen YouTube, but how long would it take and would people give up YouTube for several months while wait for governments to battle Google facilitating fraud?
If anything it would be an easy way for him to publicly show that scammy ads are a global problem and not just an X issue. Although I think it can be solved in a nanosecond if there was enough will.
Or when the Israel/Hamas war broke out, the number of propaganda ads from Israel/the IDF was outright disturbing. Most of them spewing the nonsense of Israel being "the holy ones" and they are fighting the "evil animals". Just repugnant rhetoric.
These ads are a tax on the old and low IQ.
Just today I saw my elderly father click on a YouTube ad link for a crypto scam copying Swedish televisions web layout he was reading it and I saw it at the corner of my eye. He has adblock installed, he disabled it because of the terms of service popup by YouTube. What is he supposed to do, create a google account and get premium instead? How about having safe ads so he doesn't have to figure out YouTube premium?
I just put my parents on my family plan, you should consider it, it's a very low price for the peace of mind, plus they love not having ads
Paying for a product instead of being the product.
Huge quality of life improvement. How is it different from paying for Netflix and similar?
If it were ads for car insurance and lego, I don't think there would be the same concern.
So as far as I'm concerned, they can spy all they want. That horse left the stable years ago anyway. Just don't waste my time with ads on YouTube, and we won't have any beef. So far Google has held up their end of the bargain; we'll see if that remains true going forward.
Secondly, paying for premium doesn’t in any capacity stop you from seeing scam ads in the sharing networks Google powers.
Given that other platforms are already showing ads for their paid tiers, it is not a matter of “if”, but “when” for YouTube.
I'll type slowly this time to make it easier to understand: I don't care about ads on other sites, I only care about avoiding them on YouTube, and YouTube Premium currently works fine for that.
It's OK if they "spy" on me to keep the other ads relevant, but that's not the subject of this thread.
The point is that the claim that “paying for premium means you’re no longer the product” is absolutely, and demonstrably bullshit.
Now you’re just giving money to Google for you to be the product, with a side benefit of (currently) not seeing Google ads.
This it going to change within 16 months anyway, as Google shifts away from broad spectrum premium towards premium having different benefits, and you’ll have to have individual paid subscriptions to remove ads for specific users (not unlike twitch, where paying for prime no longer removes ads).
Right, you are never "product" in the first place. You are either paying user or a supplier of product, both of which are providing something of value to the company in exchange for what they provide you. The "product" witticism is a bad presentation of the problem, both mistaking the source of distinction (presenting it as pay vs. not-pay) and the nature of the issue (presenting it as product vs. customer.) It's related to another overused and misleading statement, the idea that "the customer is always right" is a general principle (when, in fact, it very much is not and businesses actively work to drive out undesirable paying customers, and strategically neglect the particular interest of others, all the time.)
The real issue is that if you are a small, replaceable fraction of a broad set of people from whom a firm can get the same thing of value -- whether its attention to ads, or a small monthly payment, or whatever -- there is very little reason for the company to expend effort catering to things that will keep you in particular (rather than the broad group as a whole) happy and willing to supply the thing of value in question, and if you are part of a particularly demanding subset of that group, placing a high demand on resources but from which the firm is not able to extract greater value by market segmentation, then the firm is quite likely to not only not want to expend much to satisfy you, but is likely to actively wish to drive you off as a customer.
The real issue is that you are a commodity vendor seeking to influence a large buyer (or a commoditized purchaser trying to influence a large seller), not that you are "product" or that you aren't "paying money".
You're still the product. You think they aren't still collecting info on what you watch and associating that with your google account for cross-marketing elsewhere on the web?
https://adssettings.google.com/partnerads
-Every corporation in the world.
I do really enjoy my ad free YouTube, 8 years and counting, the $20 / month for 5 accounts is very much worth it
I also run pi-hole at home, because while I understand the need for ads, I'm done with 23 ads, 15 flyouts, 1 video that will play in the corner until the end of time even though you obviously scrolled past it with zero intention of viewing it, 4 animated gifs, a pop-up chatbot window, etc. etc. etc.
You'll find the same quality spectrum. At least I know that the creator is seeing more of the ad dollars.
1. sponsored ads are only in a minority of videos, so largely the platform is actually ad-free. I'm paying to not have YT ads, I did not expect my subscription to eliminate sponsored ads. Where is the lie?
2. paid YT is categorically a better experience and worth every penny, even with the occasional sponsored ad, which again, can be skipped
3. YMMV, it really depends on the content you chose to consume. I stay away from the most viewed creators, it's typically low quality
4. Direct payments for a product is a much healthier model than the ad supported model, imho.
On youtube the content was uploaded by creators on the understanding it would be freely accessible to everyone.
Additionally it's a matter of user control and rights. They don't get to tell the user what their user agent does and what content it should fetch or display to the user or what code it should run.
It's their website, but it's my device.
The next step is for youtube to require you to watch the ad and stop playing if you look away.
A lot of YouTube creators make their content for money. YouTube in this case is the layer between creator and watcher, making sure they get paid. Wether that is by ad money or subscription money. Before that, things were much more difficult for video creators.
> The next step is for youtube to require you to watch the ad and stop playing if you look away.
The next step for YouTube is hopefully to put the entire site behind a login and remove all ads.
But, this kind of stuff is a big reason they want remote attestation so badly.
Except the timeshare pitch is hyper-personalized specifically for you based on your entire internet history everywhere and is designed to yield the maximum chance of manipulating you into falling for it.
As a consumer you have easy options to block out the sales pitch, except the store who has a monopoly on the thing you want is now trying to scare users into disabling their ad blockers. The users that do this are disproportionately more likely to be less versed in how these things work and are thus more likely to fall for the scam.
Yes, it's a protection racket. It's just got a funny hat on this time.
Yes? I've mostly quit watching YouTube (and really a lot of media) because the shear amount of it and the number of predatory dark patterns have just gotten to be too much for me (it's possible that I'm overly sensitive in some way). But if it's important to him, then maybe it's worth paying some money for the experience. Personally I'm trying to get back into reading/audiobooks.
Yes YT should invest more in review and policy work — but it’s a forever expanding cost with no silver bullet.
I appreciate there’s a least a price and option for ads-free.
I really do try not to be the perpetual downer here, but Google has nearly unlimited resources including psych PhDs on staff to influence peoples' behavior and I assume executives with black holes where their souls would normally be who are trying to satisfy that void with money, but can never do so.
I guess the best I can say is that it's about picking your battles.
Famously, this is a place where FAANG employees have some representation, so I suspect that the comments do occasionally get read by people with at least some connection to the products. Increasingly, I wonder how they live with themselves; the older I get, the less any amount of money could get me to use psychological tricks on people in order to scam them.
almost
Putting the onus on the corporations is the one thing that's guaranteed, with a long and storied proven track record, of not working.
Go watch something else, somewhere else, another site, or you know tv or something.