[K0balt]

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

[AnthonyMouse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[K0balt]

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

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

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

[AnthonyMouse]

> An advertisement is the exact opposite of private

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

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

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

[K0balt]

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

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

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

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

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

[K0balt]

Does this appear to be an official government website?

Does this url match the government website in question?

9/10 my local 7B LLM answers correctly.

[AnthonyMouse]

A 10% false positive rate is worthless.

[K0balt]

No, it’s not. Appeal->higher level review. 97 percent of your regular customers get served with no issues. The problem is that the fraudulent ads fetch much higher than average CPV and CPC.

[AnthonyMouse]

> No, it’s not. Appeal->higher level review. 97 percent of your regular customers get served with no issues.

Yes, it is, because it causes 10% of the whole ocean to end up needing manual review for an appeal.

> The problem is that the fraudulent ads fetch much higher than average CPV and CPC.

They're sold at auction. They only have to outbid the next highest bidder by a hair.