[zenspunk]

Should Google somehow run background checks on every advertiser to see if they're breaking some US law? (or other countries' laws?) What broken laws should justify removal?

Should this be before or after they allow them to advertise? If before, this would inconvenience the majority of advertisers who are legitimate. If after, should Google investigate every incoming report of illegitimate advertising? Or, how many reports should warrant an investigation by Google?

Regardless, can Google remove these Adword listings without legal issues (i.e. without risking being sued)?

Getting these scammers off the front page of search would be relatively easy - it can be solved algorithmically. They're probably working on it now, with their anti-linkspam initiative.

But I don't see how Google could get them off Adwords without employing hundreds or thousands of people to review advertisers, but this would create more problems of greater magnitude than it would solve.

They could crowdsource it to narrow the (retrospective) review process, but this would create a secondary market of advertising, which I doubt Google wants, nor users would want to deal with.

I can't think of a way for Google to solve this problem without creating larger ones.

It's the responsibility of governments -- not internet advertising platforms -- to police copyright law.

[numbsafari]

Google wants to be a useful search engine that returns relevant results. If they are returning links to malware/spyware/adware in exchange for money rather than linking to legitimate results, don't you think that is not only unethical but borderline illegal?

If Google's product is US then they are effectively selling US to the malware/spyware/adware fiends.

Google absolutely has the responsibility to return relevant, meaningful and SAFE results to its users. They already try and do that in a lot of cases. It's just that, in this case, they are getting paid not to.

[zenspunk]

Did you not read my post? I said they could easily (relatively) solve the issue of these guys turning up in search results.

The problem they can't solve, I argue, is to ensure that people violating copyright law (of some arbitrary country) can't advertise with Adwords.

Edit: Look, I can do retrospective edits too!

[numbsafari]

Here's google's policy on copyright violations in AdWords:

https://adwords.google.com/support/select/professionals/bin/...

To quote:

"For AdWords and related programs such as Google AdWords Certification, if we receive a notice or otherwise have reason to believe that an advertiser's or client manager's site is infringing, we may remove the offender's advertising in compliance with the DMCA."

So, they already do this. The question is, whether or not the VLC team has submitted a complaint that meets their criteria.

My guess is that this is something the FSF should really get involved in, except they are probably too busy taking money from Google to talk up how "open" Android is to be bothered by a little pro-bono work from a hard-working group of OSS devs.

[jbk]

We speak here about US law, not arbitrary country, because that where Google is based.

They can solve the problem of checking reports on US copyright violations with Adwords.

[zenspunk]

Google also does business and has employees and servers in many other countries. Why should they not enforce the laws of those countries too?

[jbk]

Google refuses to comply to some French law about logs retention because their servers are not in France. Why would it be otherwise in the opposite situation?

[msy]

Fake anti-virus software, counterfeit pharmacies, counterfeit products in general, malware of all sorts. Google have been taking their money for years. They have the resources not to. That's pretty shitty behaviour that endangers their users in my book.

[zenspunk]

>They have the resources not to.

This point is crucial. Could you elaborate?

[Empedocles99]

Google has billions in cash sitting around, I'm sure if they hired a few thousand people to deal with this problem that some significant strides could be made. This, however, may not be the most prudent use of resources (cash).

[JoeAltmaier]

Not taking people's money doesn't get you sued. Amazon's scam-bots cancel legitimate vendors all the time because they 'smell funny'.

And nobody asked Google to background check - the offenders were reported, and Google whitewashed the report. That raises suspicious eyebrows because Google is making money off of the offenders.

[jbk]

No, but at least Google should take down those advertisers when they are reported to them.

See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2738238 as a comment, for example.

[zenspunk]

Edit: parent made a retrospective edit to add the link after I had made this post.

So again, I ask:

- is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report?

- does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser?

- or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued?

- which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal?

- how should they solve the potential problem of scammers flooding the report system?

Again, I don't think Google can solve this problem without creating larger ones. I don't think it's their job to police copyright.

[jbk]

> is Google meant to run a background check on each and every report?

Yes. They get money from advertisement, they should check reports.

> does this not put Google at risk of being sued by the removed advertiser?

No. If Google ToS banishes copyright infrigement, they can remove advertisers without questionning.

> or, if Google wrongfully removes a legitimate advertiser, does this not put them at risk of being sued?

Sued? This is inside Google system, respecting Google ToS. They have the right to banish accounts and have done repeatedly in the past.

> which broken laws - of which country - should justify removal?

CA, USA, of course.

> how should they solve the potential problem of scammers flooding the report system?

How do they solve spam on gmail?

> I don't think it's their job to police copyright.

I disagree on Adsense, but agree on Search. Making money from illegal activities is illegal in most (if not all ) countries.

[zenspunk]

>Yes. They get money from advertisement, they should check reports.

I don't see how one implies the other. Drug companies get money from selling ingredients for makeshift heroin, they should stop its use?

> CA, USA, of course.

And which laws? Should they block advertisers of euthanasia? Political groups? "Terrorist" groups? This is a very slippery slope.

> How do they solve spam on gmail?

No, if I were to submit many reports with different advertisers from different accounts, there's no way to detect that as spam. There's no comparison with email spam, which is a one-to-many medium.

>I disagree on Adsense, but agree on Search. Making money from illegal activities is illegal in most (if not all ) countries.

Why the distinction between Adsense and Search? Do they not profit from Search?

Google isn't making money via copyright infringement - it's only a byproduct of the actions of separate perpetrators. It's like Microsoft being held responsible for botnets.

[georgemcbay]

> Drug companies get money from selling ingredients for makeshift heroin, they should stop its use?

No, but if they receive credible reports that Joe Drugdealer is is using their ingredients to make makeshift heroin, they should look into those claims before directly selling their ingredients to Joe Drugdealer in the future. That's a more apt analogy to the situation we're discussing here.