7 ms·

At some point platforms should be held responsible for the ads they run and the damages they cause. If the ad is to be broadcasted to thousands of people, or wo

by srg0 3y ago

At some point platforms should be held responsible for the ads they run and the damages they cause. If the ad is to be broadcasted to thousands of people, or worse targets groups of people, it's reasonable that it must be approved and vetted by the platform. The cost of such vetting, even if done manually by a human, is likely a fraction of what is the cost of creating an ad anyway. If necessary Google can charge advertisers with an upfront cost. Edit: grammar

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
That should be all points really. Why are you suddenly, as a platform holder, not responsible for the content you host if money changes hands for you to host it first? That makes no sense, you are still the party putting that content in front of an audience, and as part of a contractual arrangement no less.
- vannevar 3y ago
  Not only do they receive money for hosting the ad, they actually select the potential scam victims for the scammer and preferentially display the ad to the people that are algorithmically determined to be most vulnerable to the scam. It hasn't been tested yet, but I believe YouTube could be held civilly or criminally liable for the underlying fraud.
ThrowawayIP 3y ago
I think that a good way to do this would be a triple-poison pill approach. Google et. al. are capable of policing the advertisements on it's platform, there is just not the business will to do it. The triple poison pill approach: * Every user-report of a scam ad must be reviewed by an independent barred lawyer for a minimum of 15 minutes of actual time. * If a person (institution, etc) with a public image is shown in the scam ad, they must be notified and should the advertiser and platform should share joint liability. * If a person falls for a scam, they should have recourse against the platform and the advertiser.
mlrtime 3y ago
What is also frustrating is that it seems very easy to get takedowns due to DMCA. However these ads seem to stay up longer than necessary.
true_religion 3y ago
Why aren’t scams easily prosecuted in this case? We should at a minimum have financial information and contacts for the person who created the ads. Are all governments sitting on their hands because it’s happening on the internet?
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Probably because no one takes it seriously if you get scammed out of $50 on youtube.
jocoda 3y ago
>...platforms should be held responsible for the ads they run. Yes! If the platform hosts its ads on its own platform, then I'm OK with that. I don't like ads, but they 'own' the ad content and if it blows, there's no one else to point finger at. Show an ad from some 3rd party and I have no qualms in blocking that.

by srg0 3y ago

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

That should be all points really. Why are you suddenly, as a platform holder, not responsible for the content you host if money changes hands for you to host it first? That makes no sense, you are still the party putting that content in front of an audience, and as part of a contractual arrangement no less.

vannevar 3y ago
Not only do they receive money for hosting the ad, they actually select the potential scam victims for the scammer and preferentially display the ad to the people that are algorithmically determined to be most vulnerable to the scam. It hasn't been tested yet, but I believe YouTube could be held civilly or criminally liable for the underlying fraud.

ThrowawayIP 3y ago

I think that a good way to do this would be a triple-poison pill approach. Google et. al. are capable of policing the advertisements on it's platform, there is just not the business will to do it. The triple poison pill approach: * Every user-report of a scam ad must be reviewed by an independent barred lawyer for a minimum of 15 minutes of actual time. * If a person (institution, etc) with a public image is shown in the scam ad, they must be notified and should the advertiser and platform should share joint liability. * If a person falls for a scam, they should have recourse against the platform and the advertiser.

mlrtime 3y ago

What is also frustrating is that it seems very easy to get takedowns due to DMCA. However these ads seem to stay up longer than necessary.

true_religion 3y ago

Why aren’t scams easily prosecuted in this case? We should at a minimum have financial information and contacts for the person who created the ads. Are all governments sitting on their hands because it’s happening on the internet?

BizarroLand 3y ago
Probably because no one takes it seriously if you get scammed out of $50 on youtube.

jocoda 3y ago

>...platforms should be held responsible for the ads they run. Yes! If the platform hosts its ads on its own platform, then I'm OK with that. I don't like ads, but they 'own' the ad content and if it blows, there's no one else to point finger at. Show an ad from some 3rd party and I have no qualms in blocking that.