4 ms·

I keep hearing it too. The bit I don't yet understand is, wouldn't it be in Google's interest to not do this? They ban on both sides of the market for seemingly

I keep hearing it too. The bit I don't yet understand is, wouldn't it be in Google's interest to not do this? They ban on both sides of the market for seemingly no reason. Wouldn't maximizing all legitimate participation be much better? Also seems a lot more possible to do now with AI to check all campaigns, landing pages, etc.

ra 5d ago
I imagine it's a side-effect of another fraud prevention effort. In my experience ad fraud on a google search ad is at least 17% of traffic, and potentially a lot more. Whilst I don't doubt that Google invest heavily in fraud prevention, they're not actually succeeding.
- e40 5d ago
  Who benefits from the fraud, though?
  - bflesch 5d ago
    Google is fleecing other megacorps.
  - losteric 5d ago
    Spam website owners pay for these bots, they get compensated for the conversions. In an ideal world, google’s ad prices and fraud detection would render this ineffective.
- nikanj 5d ago
  Without the fraud prevention, it would be 99.9998%. Pushing it to 17% is impressive, even if not sufficient
weare138 5d ago
Hypothetically you would have already paid for the ads before your account gets suspended/banned then hypothetically Google just keep sending you automated replies denying your requests for support until you give up or lawyer up. And when you consider the shear scale Google's adtech networks run at, this would add up fast and generate revenue over costs. Hypothetically
- noAnswer 5d ago
  They also pull this off in the other direction too. You having earned money by showing ads? They claim there was click-farming ...and it's gone!
altmanaltman 5d ago
I really don't get it. Ads are supposed to be Google's biggest revenue thing but the entire process is just so infuriating at times. Their ads dashboard/tool for running ads is one of the worst pieces of software i have used period. My theory is they just dont care about individual experience as long as businesses see value in it. Nobody is going to not run ads because the platform is from hell. They still need to run ads and thus suffering is okay.
chadgpt3 5d ago
When you want to keep your house warm, you ordinarily should not burn the rafters. However, when the house is about to collapse anyway, it is cheaper to dismantle the roof and to burn the rafters than to buy firewood.
- le-mark 5d ago
  This; search is dead google is a walking corpse.
da_chicken 5d ago
Google is an overwhelming market leader vertically and horizontally. Not only do they not have to compete with their competition. They don't have to compete for their competition's business partners. They don't have to compete at all. What's more, they're a publicly traded company. That means their primary product is no longer what they sell. Their primary product is stock dividends. That is their primary business now. Whether you're buying a service or a product from Google, you're no longer their true customer. They treat such customers like they don't matter because they don't. And until they stop being in such a position of dominance, or someone magically transforms the whole of American business culture it won't change.
- robertlagrant 5d ago
  > What's more, they're a publicly traded company. That means their primary product is no longer what they sell. Their primary product is stock dividends. That is their primary business now. Whether you're buying a service or a product from Google, you're no longer their true customer. Who is their true customer then?
  - da_chicken 4d ago
    The same as every publicly held company. The shareholder. What else did you think the Friedman doctrine meant?
    - robertlagrant 4d ago
      Friedman was a very smart man. I think he knew what a customer is.
      - MrSkelter 4d ago
        That’s just unfounded hero worship. You need to provide evidence he was right.
        robertlagrant 4d ago
throwuxiytayq 5d ago
Do not attribute malice (or even intention) to which can be explained by Google-level incompetence.
- lightedman 5d ago
  The moment Google removed 'Do No Evil' from their values the only explanation left is pure malice.
  - inquirerGeneral 5d ago
    [dead]

ra 5d ago

I imagine it's a side-effect of another fraud prevention effort. In my experience ad fraud on a google search ad is at least 17% of traffic, and potentially a lot more. Whilst I don't doubt that Google invest heavily in fraud prevention, they're not actually succeeding.

e40 5d ago
Who benefits from the fraud, though?
- bflesch 5d ago
  Google is fleecing other megacorps.
- losteric 5d ago
  Spam website owners pay for these bots, they get compensated for the conversions. In an ideal world, google’s ad prices and fraud detection would render this ineffective.
nikanj 5d ago
Without the fraud prevention, it would be 99.9998%. Pushing it to 17% is impressive, even if not sufficient

weare138 5d ago

Hypothetically you would have already paid for the ads before your account gets suspended/banned then hypothetically Google just keep sending you automated replies denying your requests for support until you give up or lawyer up. And when you consider the shear scale Google's adtech networks run at, this would add up fast and generate revenue over costs. Hypothetically

noAnswer 5d ago
They also pull this off in the other direction too. You having earned money by showing ads? They claim there was click-farming ...and it's gone!

altmanaltman 5d ago

I really don't get it. Ads are supposed to be Google's biggest revenue thing but the entire process is just so infuriating at times. Their ads dashboard/tool for running ads is one of the worst pieces of software i have used period. My theory is they just dont care about individual experience as long as businesses see value in it. Nobody is going to not run ads because the platform is from hell. They still need to run ads and thus suffering is okay.

chadgpt3 5d ago

When you want to keep your house warm, you ordinarily should not burn the rafters. However, when the house is about to collapse anyway, it is cheaper to dismantle the roof and to burn the rafters than to buy firewood.

le-mark 5d ago
This; search is dead google is a walking corpse.

da_chicken 5d ago

Google is an overwhelming market leader vertically and horizontally. Not only do they not have to compete with their competition. They don't have to compete for their competition's business partners. They don't have to compete at all. What's more, they're a publicly traded company. That means their primary product is no longer what they sell. Their primary product is stock dividends. That is their primary business now. Whether you're buying a service or a product from Google, you're no longer their true customer. They treat such customers like they don't matter because they don't. And until they stop being in such a position of dominance, or someone magically transforms the whole of American business culture it won't change.

robertlagrant 5d ago
> What's more, they're a publicly traded company. That means their primary product is no longer what they sell. Their primary product is stock dividends. That is their primary business now. Whether you're buying a service or a product from Google, you're no longer their true customer. Who is their true customer then?
- da_chicken 4d ago
  The same as every publicly held company. The shareholder. What else did you think the Friedman doctrine meant?
  - robertlagrant 4d ago
    Friedman was a very smart man. I think he knew what a customer is.
    - MrSkelter 4d ago
      That’s just unfounded hero worship. You need to provide evidence he was right.
      - robertlagrant 4d ago

throwuxiytayq 5d ago

Do not attribute malice (or even intention) to which can be explained by Google-level incompetence.

lightedman 5d ago
The moment Google removed 'Do No Evil' from their values the only explanation left is pure malice.
- inquirerGeneral 5d ago
  [dead]