I created a tool that automatically follows ads to try to find scams.
But that was usually reserved to typosquat domain ads or ads on porn websites. I didn't know scammers used normal page ads too.
I know tech support scams used to use google search ads, but I don't think they do that as much anymore, so maybe they have moved onto things like adsense.
These scammers usually do IP address checks to check for residential IP before showing the scam, and some also do some basic fingerprinting checks, so that is how they get past detection. That said, it shouldn't be too difficult for google to do some better checks if they actually cared.
Google is absolutely smart enough to make these attacks un-economical. IMO they are unwilling to incur the loss in revenue this would involve (false positives, banned resellers etc).
As a result, even though "Enhanced" safe browsing can use Gemini Nano to do client side detection of scams and then flag it in google safe browsing for everyone, the entire domain and all subdomains are whitelisted, so that detection never seems to actually fire. https://blog.google/security/using-ai-to-stop-tech-support-s...
I'm not sure which domains this applies to, but it seems to apply to most of the domains that these scammers actually like to use.
Same issue with spam sms in my country: I think they geo-locate it so submitting the link to safe browsing project takes way too long
Is it your website or theirs? YOU are the one putting such ads there as YOU have chosen a sketchy ad company (google).
- Add that attribution -- blame Google (or, supposing the ads are good, credit Google; a good header goes a long way toward swaying people's opinions)
- But it doesn't matter if a single website appropriately attributes Google's highest/lowest-quality ads. The last step (speculative and hand-wavy) is to incorporate that behaviour in some sort of software more people want to use. If you're fighting alone then you'll lose. If you can convince more people that appropriately crediting Google's advertising successes and blaming their malicious failures is advantageous, you'll (by definition) have more traction in the anti-megacorp-endorsed scams and other life-altering consequences.
well thought I was getting some actual useful tip
If people are going to learn to install an extension, it should be UBlock Origin. That will solve more problems than attributing scam ads.
Nobody’s yet cared enough to sue them, or their managers at ICC yet. However, eventually an ambitious lawyer will try to make the case, especially if fraud and human trafficking continues to grow like it is.
Want to take bets on whether the US gov wades in if that happens?
The US gov is directly antagonistic to the ICC and will undermine them whenever possible. This would present them another chance.
If yes, then ... you are profiting from ... that shite. You must be OK with that and it does sound like you are actively complicit with it, despite your protestations.
If you really think that Adsense is awful and might damage your brand then dump it and don't whine on HN!
OK, that's probably a bit unfair because you are dealing with a monopoly with no recourse to arbitration. That's your real problem.