Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jskewel | Hacker News Reader

Adsense has been a nightmare for us.

They have been putting thousands of scam adverts on our website for some time. Think "you have been looking at xxx and must pay a $100 fine" type popup nonsense. Hosted on the following websites:

azurestaticapps.net

azurewebsites.net

herokuapp.com

ondigitalocean.app

digitaloceanspaces.com

netlify.app

Google doesn't allow you to block these domains, because they consider them "TLDs" (the scammers use a new subdomain every day eg abcdefg.herokuapp.com). The scammers get banned and return the next day with a new account and subdomain (repeat every day). Therefore we cannot stop them. It's bizarre and baffling. But Google Adsense had to go.

View on HN

Yep. Same!! https://www.cannonade.net/blog/why-i-turned-off-google-adsen...

Wow I am surprised to see this.

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.

Yep. I Agree. I believe it's a question of economics, not technical challenges.

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).

Another major issue is google safe browsing whitelists many of these subdomains that the attackers like to host their scam pages on.

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.

> 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.

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

I have the same experience in one of our properties.

We have someone who's checking daily what's there, and they need to vet ads constantly.

It's a lot of anti-fungus advertisement (which made us block health products in general), but also a lot of fake software. Unfortunately we can't afford to block the entire software category.

>They have been putting thousands of scam adverts on our website…

Is it your website or theirs? YOU are the one putting such ads there as YOU have chosen a sketchy ad company (google).

The problem is that Google has enshittified their service, destroyed their reputation for quality control, and that information is very slow to disseminate.

Brands work as a trust heuristic, so a fallen brand continues to trade on its old reputation for a while.

Personally, I'd put twenty quid a month in a microtransaction wallet to cover hosting costs instead of ads, but that's not an option. I already pay for search.

I hate ad technology but it does, to a small extent, empower creators. Is there a better way? I don't think geocities is coming back.

Google is part of a cartel of ad companies. Most websites do not have any option left. To blame small companies for choosing big tech monopolies is unfair and solves nothing.

Strong regulations and splitting monopolies are the real solutions here.

And if Google breaks the law someone from the company needs to go to prison, too. Knowingly helping criminals is a crime itself.

Huh? You have options? Tiny radio stations of 30 years ago all had their own ad department with a salesman who's job was to find advertisers. Most website shave enough reach to fund the own ads.

Also, if you along are not big enough, it was common to join with others (beware of anti-trust laws). You only need a few websites on your new less dodgy ad platforms and those who want to advertise will run to you because you control impressions. You probably won't get as rich as Google running a new ad company, but there is plenty of money to make a nice living selling non-dodgy ads.

You don't have to make it your business model to sell people's attention to those wanting to manipulate them.

When everybody is giving their product for free to compete with a paid product is almost impossible.

But I agree that it should not be like that and that governments around the world should regulate all these "free" services.

I'm curious why Google wouldn't want to block those domains. I find it hard to imagine any site that would be using only one of those domains and would be legitimate to purchase from. I understand people having blogs etc on a domain like that, and obviously development stuff, but nothing with purchase intent.

As a publisher it really sucks. The DSPs must know these ads are shit. It would be trivial to filter them with a bit of AI.

I've asked my Google partnered SSP to disallow ethically bankrupt ads like gambling, alcohol etc. They say "we've asked the partners to block those categories"... and then it just keeps happening. They're either unable or unwilling to help. I had to take ads down for several days at my own expense due to rogue ads. The ads are now in safe frames which doesn't pay quite as well but I'm okay with it.

There is no explicit IAB category for Gambling and Alcohol in v1 of the IAB Taxonomy. What seems to have been informally agreed is that:

- 'IAB9-7 Card Games' also includes Gambling

- 'IAB8-5 — Cocktails/Beer' and 'IAB8-18 — Wine' means Alcohol.

(Later taxonomy versions have proper values but not everyone supports these)

These blocked categories should be passed to all DSPs by your SSP.

If your SSP cannot block them then get a new SSP.

Don't you use ad quality solution? why?

Name one

Yes, Confiant

A friend of mine runs a web agency company (you know, the oldskool wordpress dev shop). Clients from almost all industries, some very high traffic & publicly visible (think magazines). About two years ago they recommended all their clients remove random ads (primarily via Adsense) as they were injecting crypto-scams and porny/gaming ads for trashy site/apps on sites where they really shouldn't be. Some clients completely dropped it just fine (meaning, no replacement ad engine), while the bigger clients are using purely targeted/specified ads where they know the brand being advertised, typically from within in their own industries, and no more random ads being shown. People are fed up with ads/Adsense. Just the the stuff kids see while playing mobile games are atrocious.

The problem is the scummy adsense ads don't hurt Google's reputation. Outside the techie crowd people don't know the ads are from Google.

That seems fixable. When people include this JS garbage, have a header/title/etc stating that this is Google's professional opinion. Bake it into a library offering enough other features that a large number of people are inclined to use it.

hmm could you explain more?

- The big problem is that malicious ads are being displayed without appropriate attribution

- 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.

The second you load JS onto your page, you lose that ability, you know that, right? the scammy ads aren't limited to that tiny little box you designate for ads. Advertisers work around that limitation pretty easily, and you should also probably read AdSense terms of service before doing too much to blame google. Some of the language will surprise you.

Such as? Provide the relevant context that you're referring to as suprising.

When you put it like that, it seems like it's too dangerous to offer that kind of access! Maybe Google shouldn't sell it.

Couldn't this be a browser extension?

Probably, but then only the people with that extension would see the note.

If people are going to learn to install an extension, it should be UBlock Origin. That will solve more problems than attributing scam ads.

hmm thought this was about adwords JS 'intelligently' reading page contents, and when it finds such attribution with some special tags, filters out certain ads...

well thought I was getting some actual useful tip

Ad viewers are about as empowered as the cow the goes into your cheeseburger. No agency, and no communication mechanism to the rancher’s actual customer.

These companies that abstain from adsense and it’s revenue are WWW vegans.

The only people that would care are already using adblockers and not seeing these ads anyway.

It doesn't practically matter whether the ads are from google. They're shown on a third party site, not using google won't get rid of them, only not using that site will (or installing an adblocker...). Users very reasonably blame the site, who have direct agency to remove the ads.

IIRC this dilemma was one of the things that was driving the Google antitrust case that unfortunately will not result in divorcing search from ads.

Agree it's reasonable. I removed the ads :P

Calls from law enforcement is laud and clear: BigTech is not doing enough to fight fraud, war and other crimes, they make money from criminals.

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.

> at ICC yet.

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.

VW makes money from criminals. So does Verizon. So does Coke.

It does in the sense that they're losing business, as people describe in this thread. But I get your point, Google seems to be enjoying the profits more than the harm to their reputation. If it gets bad enough, maybe they'll rethink.

They're losing business that they don't want. Silicon Valley culture has embraced saying no, firing clients and customers, choosing the right audience, etc. This even fits into finding product-market fit. You don't try to please everyone, and find a well-defined segment. So to Google it might not seem like it's getting bad at all. To them, maybe the trash took itself out, they got rid of that annoying customer who complains about their marketplace, whereas they appreciate the quiet reporting of an ad that's against the ToS...

Oh wow, I am just setting up a new site with the plan on recouping part of the modest running costs with Adsense ads but this is making me reconsider.

Are there any solid, preferably European, alternatives for a site that doesn't really have any traffic yet but a fairly decent growth potential in 3-6 months timeframe?

Even reddit bans any netlify.app url in messages or posts (at least for me). Never checked for comments.

I suppose the obvious question is: Are you actively profiting from Adsense?

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.

Read their last sentence again.

“AdSense has got to go” should include OP’s use if they truly believe that. That’s what the person you’re responding to is saying.

"Had to go". Past tense. It's not ambiguous. The only correct interpretation of that sentence is they did get rid of it.

Ah shit, that one word does change the whole meaning of the sentence. Well, at least we brought attention to it over the course of four comments instead of this just being the first response lol

Classic example of victim blaming. Not the company generating the ad, not the company approving it, but the person who is trying to block it, and then ACTUALLY did stop using Adsense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com