|
|
|
|
|
by sdrothrock
3765 days ago
|
|
> So effectively what you're saying is that we should eliminate ad networks. There is no reasonable way to screen every ad before it is shown when using an ad network. Or you could have ad networks that only circulate carefully vetted/curated ads. Imagine if you had an ad network that was picky and only allowed ads that were clever/interesting, short, not annoying, and didn't lead to malicious/fake products! |
|
Also, even if you could catch everything with manual human vetting of every ad, it would be cost-prohibitive. (Either you would have to pay less to publishers, or charge more to advertisers. The latter would likely be a non-starter, because it is already difficult for most small advertisers to run positive ROI campaigns. The former would put further pressure on publishers, making them even less likely to accept the risk of these proposed lawsuits.)
I would love to see online advertising improved, and I think there are certainly possible ways to go about it. I'm just trying to illustrate that it's not as easy as, "don't let people publish or distribute bad ads."
To borrow the analogy from the article, we couldn't stop spam by going after the email providers for allowing it through.