Common pattern they had was:
- similar or same domains
- same messaging on their website
YouTube could have taken action, but it choose not to
... the crimes they actually make a lot of money from.
However it's also a tricky business to be the adjudicator of what is and isn't a scam. You're going to have to deal with a lot of complaints from "legitimate businessmen".
- People who want to work in tech because it was a stable and/or lucrative career
- People who just want/love to code
- People who loved tech / think tech is cool
There’s also a degree of counter-culture that used to be part of the mix, which got jettisoned as tech became mainstream and mapped out.
The current state of Tech is unpleasant and alarming.
They are not the brightest, just the ones who sold out others and grabbed the money, with ethics and morals not being sufficient personal barriers.
Calling them the brightest just feeds their belief that they merit the money, and they don't have to ask the real reason they have so much money.
Why does anyone think a brilliant mind would enjoy that? So they could make a little bit more money?
Do you honestly think brilliant people, the smartest of our generation, care about money?
IME, Google software devs aren't even the brightest minds in the parking lot.
Completing large engineering projects says nothing about individual capability, and nothing about how Google deploys shitty AI moderation and about how Google employees insist it's great and perfect and never does anything wrong gives me any reason to believe they are even competent.
It's literally a meme that people started repeating in earnest without a second thought.
Don't you think a brilliant person would work somewhere, like, interesting?
In economies where you aren't rewarded for individual competency (because software management couldn't pick out individual competency if it screamed at them), highly competent people aren't going to play the game, they are just going to find something to pay the bills and work on hobbies.
The smart people are often where the money isn't, because they are rarely driven by monetary pursuits.
I have a theory that it doesn't. Which set of companies' logic is more likely?:
Is LadyCailin a "tree-hugging liberal"? LadyCailin clicked on a lot of Sierra Club and PETA ads, so yes. Good, we will add LadyCailin to this list.
Is LadyCailin an "extremist right-wing nazi"? LadyCailin clicked on a lot of prepper and gold ads, so yes. Good, we will *also* add LadyCailin to this other list.
OR
Is LadyCailin a "tree-hugging liberal"? Well, they clicked on these ads, so we think so, but then they clicked on these other ads, so we're not sure. Then she clicked on these other ads, now we don't have any idea.
Speaking from personal experience: Because some people have used my phone number and email address as their own, I get emails for one political party and text messages for the other political party.
It doesn't make my ad profile useless to the people sending me ads.
Give your phone number to both U.S. political parties. Congratulations you will get spammed by both. I doubt they are cross-checking.
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-tolerates-rampan...
[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
Their incentives contradict healthy behavior… :(
Here's Google's response:
We understand you are concerned about the content in question, but please note that Google's services host third-party content. Google is not a creator or mediator of that content. We encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the individual who posted the content.