
No More Deceptive Download Buttons - r721
https://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2016/02/no-more-deceptive-download-buttons.html
======
lexicality
Perhaps now that Google has taken steps to block websites that display these
ads, Google should take steps to stop accepting these ads onto their network
in the first place. Most of the time when I see those DOWNLOAD/PLAY buttons,
they're hosted on doubleclick.

~~~
developer2
I'm not at all against this move from Google - it is good sense. However, to
play Devil's advocate, what are the odds this was pushed down by the MPAA/RIAA
or similar? This policy more or less directly targets sites that offer free
online streaming or torrent downloads of Movies/TV/Music. The sites that wind
up with these deceptive ads are typically sites that provide copyrighted
content to their users.

Again, this is not a bad move. But I'm curious about the true motivations. If
I were the MPAA, and trying to shut down the revenue stream of sites offering
free streaming and torrents, this would be one of the ways to do it. That, or
Google is simply sick of receiving takedown notices - and this is one method
to take these sites out of their listings before even receiving the DMCA.

~~~
witty_username
In my experience most free online streaming and torrent downloading websites
have very small hard-to-find download buttons with a lot of fake "Download
Now!" ads. So this would actually make torrenting easier.

~~~
tdkl
By showing a full screen alert ?

There are also a lot of free file hosting sites with tons of those fake
download buttons. Good luck downloading from them now.

~~~
witty_username
I mean it makes displaying "Download Now!" banners less effective. You can
bypass the alert; Chrome puts the alert if I understood.

------
dheera
This "Google Safe Browsing" initiative seriously worries me. It's effectively
some unknown, mysterious, un-contactable set of AI algorithms/people/who knows
what controlling the internet because Google owns everyone's browser.

One of my websites got tagged as "Dangerous" and having "harmful programs"
despite having nothing of the sort. My guess is a silly hiccup of their neural
network algorithms. And I have absolutely nobody I can contact about the issue
to get an explanation. They just effectively killed the site in one fell
swoop.

~~~
ryanlol
As with most things in this world, you could sue them.

~~~
crdoconnor
They'd invoke the first amendment. It would be pretty open and shut.

~~~
ryanlol
I'm not sure if you know what the "first amendment" is. I'll tell you what it
isn't, it's not a magical trump card that lets you say whatever you want.

~~~
crdoconnor
[http://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-
fi...](http://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-first-
amendment-control-search-results-209034)

That seems to be how Google is (successfully) using it.

~~~
maehwasu
That's a VERY different situation. Google is claiming there that (essentially)
they have the right to put sites in whatever order they want, and US courts
are extremely sympathetic to that argument.

Here the issue is that Google is making direct, verbal claims about other
sites. That's not to say Google couldn't come up with a strategy to win in
court, but the strategy would have to differ markedly.

------
whyleyc
This is a joke right ? We run Adsense display ads on our site and have to
spend significant time every day reviewing and blocking new ads which try to
use these deceptive practices.

Since Google clearly has the tech to detect this they should be implementing
it at source on the advertisers (malvertisers). Instead they are pushing this
down to the publishers and hitting them with penalties.

It's a clever ploy in some ways - Google gets the revenue from the ads and
also the kudos from Joe Public for "being on the side of the consumer".

~~~
onion2k
Firstly, this will work on ad networks other than Google, so it''s more broad
reaching than anything they could do just within AdSense. This is good.

Secondly, and arguably more importantly, the way to stop these adverts is for
them to cost the advertiser (in either money or time) without giving them the
reward of revenue. If the ads stop working then people won't have a reason to
make them. By stopping the ads in AdSense rogue advertisers would just change
to a different ad network. The problem wouldn't stop.

This is a good move by Google.

~~~
kalkin
"more broad reaching than anything they could do just within AdSense"

... as long as you don't care about browsers which don't run Google's Safe
Browsing service.

You know another way to stop these ads? Make available an advertising network
which doesn't serve them. Website owners who don't want to install malware on
their users' computers - which is probably most of us - would prefer that
network to the others. As-is, with even Google's network serving up malicious
ads, the choice for a website that wants to run display ads appears to be
either build out a sales team & manage inventory itself, or accept that some
percentage of its users will get scammed.

~~~
bazillion
I've actually built an advertising network[1] that is not focused on serving
display ads, but linking to content directly in images. Video demo:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GfKBvs53Ss](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GfKBvs53Ss)

The thought is that if "advertising" is actually a _feature_ of a website,
then it solves the problem of users trying to avoid being shown ads. If you
could hover your mouse over an object on any image on the internet and be
taken directly to where you can buy that without all the hassle, I'd see that
as a big win.

Note: Just onboarded our first customer yesterday. He's using it to promote
iPhone cases based on his instagram feed[2]. Hover over the cases on a
desktop, and you'll see what the case is. Click on it, and it takes you
directly to the product page.

[1] [http://pleenq.com](http://pleenq.com)

[2] [http://www.obeythekorean.net/pages/instagram-
feed](http://www.obeythekorean.net/pages/instagram-feed)

~~~
soared
This is the first ad platform I've seen that is innovative in a good way,
instead of the usual remarketing/tracking/native/data whatever bullshit.
Seriously, awesome idea and execution. Have you gotten any press for this?

~~~
bazillion
No press, just a reddit post[1]. Do you know anyone? :)

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/43qnen/if_you...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/43qnen/if_you_own_a_website_i_want_to_make_you_more_money/)

~~~
soared
This is undoubtedly interesting content for writers and bloggers. I'll think
on it and PM you if I come up with anything worthwhile.

------
joosters
So safe browsing is now blocking pages where the adverts are "often not
distinguishable from the rest of the page"?

IMO that covers all of Google's search result pages. Most users don't seem to
realise that the top results are paid advertising...

~~~
Karunamon
Here's a google SERP for "insurance":
[http://imgur.com/VUqwyPq](http://imgur.com/VUqwyPq)

Are you saying the bright "ad" lozenge next to the paid results isn't explicit
enough?

And anyways, users don't go out of their way to avoid clicking on ads unless
the ads are utter crap. Google's whole business is to make the ads relevant to
the search and the user, so who's to say the ad isn't actually a relevant
result?

~~~
awqrre
Somewhat off topic... but also, it states 1,010,000,000 results on the first
page of this query but if I go to the last page, it comes down to 412
results... I can't believe that there is only 412 insurance related pages on
the whole Internet...
[https://www.google.com/search?q=insurance&num=100&safe=off&s...](https://www.google.com/search?q=insurance&num=100&safe=off&start=400)

~~~
Karunamon
I think there's some weird pagination happening in your URL. If I take the
"num=100&safe=off&start=400" off, it works as expected.

~~~
awqrre
It works as expected according to them if they don't expect you to look at all
the results, I guess.

Please tell me what link you have at result #500, because I can't see it even
if I remove the URL parameters and use the standard 10 results per page...

~~~
Karunamon
That gets me "Portal: Health insurance - University of Bern", on page 52. The
url looks like:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=insurance&biw=1440&bih=830&e...](https://www.google.com/search?q=insurance&biw=1440&bih=830&ei=Yg61VsmWF8eZmQHF5aawAg&start=500&sa=N)

~~~
awqrre
I cannot go past page 53 when using the URL that you are referring to (they
added some results that can be seen, it currently is 532 but it changes pretty
often).

But the behavior changed since yesterday... yesterday it would have said "Page
53 of 532 results" and now it says "Page 53 of about 1,010,000,000 results"
but most of them still can't be seen...

------
torgoguys
I'm surprised of the negativity towards this action, but I guess I shouldn't
be. A lot of you are in a very different situation than me and this will
affect you directly. However, warning people away from being potentially
tricked by these deceptive ads is a very good thing.

Tons of sites out there that turn a blind eye to such ads and that's bad. Yes,
there will be some unfortunate pain for sites that responsibly attempt to
block these ads as they come up. Assuming the blog post is correct and Google
has implemented this correctly, it should be minimal for those sorts of folks
since they claim the penalty will only occur if users are _consistently_
getting social engineering ads. (I suspect Google will ratchet up the rate
over time though, assuming these ads become less common as a result of this
and similar efforts).

EDIT: See below. I'm convinced and with y'all now. Google--this is a step in
the right direction and I support this action, but you do need to get your own
house in order too!

~~~
protomyth
> I'm surprised of the negativity towards this action

Its pretty basic. A lot of people are not happy that Google is serving these
ads that they are telling you they will stop at the browser-level with a
warning that makes the site owner look guilty. They want Google's Ad network
to stop serving the ads in the first place.

~~~
torgoguys
Thanks for that.

So can anyone point me to an ad served by Google that is as bad as the
examples in the blog post? I thought Google had previously cracked down on
such ads from the serving side too, although less deceptive ones were still
allowed, no? I'm happy to be better informed!

~~~
infogulch
getpaint.net is mentioned elsewhere itt. Perhaps not quite as bad, but still
at least mildly deceptive.

~~~
torgoguys
Gotcha. Yeah, I see one there. Big green button with a down arrow saying "GET
IT NOW" lots of whitespace below and then a smallish rewaterpressure logo.
Because of the whitespace, the button very much looked associated with the
paint.net download text above, not with the rewaterpressure logo below.

I also received the less bad (but still bad) text-based "start download now"
one the same page. You convinced me. Editing my parent post above.

EDIT: for those curious, here's what the page looked like on the page load
mentioned above: [http://imgur.com/SisOXNT](http://imgur.com/SisOXNT)

They were all Google served ads.

------
Piskvorrr
"You may have encountered social engineering in a deceptive download button,
or an image ad that falsely claims your system is out of date."

Weeeellll...I see 99% of these in Android in-app ads. So - a) this should be
the end of it, or b) someone is being a bit hypocritical here. I sure hope for
the former.

------
danr4
This is really important. One step closer to killing ad tech companies who
only make money off my grandma and little brother.

~~~
afandian
You mean Google? I see a tonne of deceptive advertising propagated by Google's
ad network.

~~~
danr4
No. I mean the companies whose sole business is to get you to download bundled
malware, change your search engine, push ads to every site you browse using
extensions etc.

Source: I've worked at one of those.

~~~
afandian
Surely the companies that advertise via Google to try and deceive you to into
clicking their download button or whatever fit the bill? And surely Google, by
actively enabling them, is also part of the process. As stated elsewhere on
this thread, if they can detect deceptive sites, they can detect deceptive
adverts.

~~~
throwaway7767
So they implement detection, and remove these ads. The scummy advertisers then
permutate their ads until they get past the detection and the game continues.

We're getting pretty good at image classification, but I don't think that
extends to maliciously crafted inputs.

~~~
afandian
That or they manually verify each ad submission. If that violates their
business model of high-volume low-value automated processes (and it obviously
does) then you have to take account of that when decide how you view company.
Automation and the inability to verify at the scale that they operate doesn't
somehow absolve them.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Yeah, basically Google is looking for any way to avoid actually reviewing the
ads they broadcast. Probably because advertising becomes drastically less
profitable for them if they do. I feel when this sort of conflict of interest
is occurring, where it's profitable for Google to continue shipping malware to
users, they should be held legally accountable for their failure to police
what they distribute.

------
bjackman
Interesting that when I read "these buttons", I thought " which buttons?"
because my brain's spam filter initially made them invisible to me!

------
tdkl
I hope they'll include a "Stop the nanny" flag in chrome://flags as well.

I mean you can't even change the new tab page to a custom .html, without
Chrome nagging you at every launch if the settings are correct. If you make a
manifest.json and load as an unpacked extension, it will moan about that.

FFS, I know what you're trying to do with Joe/Jane Noob, but at least give me
something to skip that if I know what I'm doing.

[edit] This wouldn't be even needed if new tab page was customizable. Now it
it's just a Google billboard.

~~~
derefr
The hard part here is that, _wherever_ you'd decide to persist a "don't bug me
any more about this" flag, malware could also potentially write that same flag
to that same place. For example, Windows UAC is frequently set to the "don't
bug me about this, just auto-elevate" setting by malware.

~~~
mschuster91
> The hard part here is that, wherever you'd decide to persist a "don't bug me
> any more about this" flag,

Build a new binary - offer users to install a "developer" build of Chrome
which is exactly the same as the mainstream "release" build, except it allows
disabling the protections.

~~~
derefr
You don't actually have to go that far; there are plenty of Chrome settings
controlled by command-line options, and that's usually safe enough—it's
actually really hard for malware to "sneak in" command-line options (if the
user is a regular user, while the the Chrome shortcuts in the Start Menu _et
al_ were installed under elevation, which is the usual case.) There's a
command-line option to Chrome that entirely disables the sandboxing
protections, for instance.

My distinction was just that there's absolutely no way to have a _UI-based_
mechanism for disabling nags, since behind any UI is a persisted flag. If
you're up for editing your shortcuts to add command-line options, that's fine.

~~~
mschuster91
> (if the user is a regular user, while the the Chrome shortcuts in the Start
> Menu et al were installed under elevation, which is the usual case.)

Nope. Windows allows deletion of "protected" shortcuts e.g. from your desktop
and launch bar.

~~~
derefr
You mean shortcuts placed in the All Users Desktop/QuickLaunch/StartMenu
folders? (I'm guessing it's just "hiding" them with a Desktop.ini entry,
rather than truly deleting them?)

That's probably fine, actually, as long as the user (i.e. malware) isn't
allowed to create their own shortcuts to replace the deleted ones. I assume
there's a GPO to disable the per-user Desktop/QuickLaunch/StartMenu folders,
so that only the results from the All Users ones show up?

------
mschuster91
Sourceforge, download.cnet.com and friends won't like this... also many of the
streaming/OCH sites will be affected.

~~~
ceejayoz
Imagine the fit the various torrent sites will throw about it.

------
jdoliner
This is really awesome. I was so excited I actually clicked the fake download
buttons to try to install it. So when does this role out?

~~~
zodPod
I'm so glad that I'm not the only one! haha

------
tobltobs
This blog post is not talking about those Adsense Download buttons, is it?

------
rplnt
I wonder if those ads that push you to install certain product with half-
truths and lies are considered deceptive as well. You know, "Install Chrome
for better experience".

------
dredmorbius
Sounds good to me.

I'd like to see Google take this one step further: author and publisher (as in
advertising network) accountability.

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/Fitbdvdk...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/Fitbdvdkw32)

Advertising providers, and advertising _publishers_, who forward "bad ads" are
given a time-out.

Perhaps 10 minutes for the first instance, but increasing durations for repeat
ocurrences. Days, weeks, and months for repeated gratuitious violations.

Ad providers and publishers who find they're being timed out for violating
standards are, likely, going to clean up their acts, and find ways to ensure
that mistakes _don't_ happen. Including direct vetting of content.

If Google don't block ads, I will.

Oh, wait, I already do that. But the rest of the Net is still catching up.

------
greggman
Hmmm, I just went to google.com and typed "Chrome for Windows" Of the 10 links
that appeared, at least 4 or 5 were for malware infected versions of Chrome. I
followed the links, the download buttons on those pages are still shown. Maybe
I misunderstood

------
tempodox
Does that mean they're taking down SourceForge?

~~~
yuhong
It just got sold to BIZX, which I think promised to stop some of the
practices.

------
flipp3r
Let's put Google's Youtube behind a deceptive site screen immediately!
[http://i.imgur.com/cXf5dwJ.png](http://i.imgur.com/cXf5dwJ.png)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Yup, here's another:
[https://plus.google.com/+JakeWeisz/posts/6YMTfeRw2jY](https://plus.google.com/+JakeWeisz/posts/6YMTfeRw2jY)

------
rackforms
My AdWords account was suspended a few days ago because of, I presume at
least, this: [https://www.rackforms.com/rackforms-express-for-
wordpress.ph...](https://www.rackforms.com/rackforms-express-for-
wordpress.php)

A popup in AdWords says I've violated "Unsupported content free desktop
software". RackForms Express is a free version of my flagship product, that
one actually being advertised.

You're feelings may very well differ, but if I've clicked on a link, organic
or ad, and I get offered a solution to the problem I was seeking an answer
for, that seem like a pretty good deal. If nothing else, this differentiation
may well be the difference between getting a sale or not.

The appeal process is to fill out this form:
[https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/contact/advertise_s...](https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/contact/advertise_software_pol),
but from my reading in Google's product forms this doesn't always work. If
this fails, the end result will be to remove free software from the net.

We're all for blocking those horrible "Download Firefox" ads, but this change,
and the resulting aftermath, feels...I don't know, dangerous. If the end
result is small companies like mine pulling valuable resources from the web, I
think we all loose.

Fingers crossed my appeal goes through.

------
TheRealmccoy
Also, ideally Google should implement this within their search algorithm
itself, by punishing the sites which indulge in such practices by pushing
their search results much further away.

------
jjp
So if a site is using Adsense and doesn't require all ads are reviewed then as
site owners appears we run the risk of another part of Google telling visitors
that the site is malicious. Hope that the site owner tooling referred to is
good enough that it can identify the advert, at worst the network otherwise
only option would be to remove Adsense code.

~~~
tobltobs
I tried to manually review all ads. But my experience was that this is not
possible with the given tools. It would take hours per day.

------
runn1ng
I will take programs like this seriously when Google stops bundling Chrome
installer with unrelated software like Adobe Flash.

~~~
jdoliner
Flash is unrelated to a web browser? I mean I hate flash as much as the next
guy... but how can Flash not be related to a browser?

~~~
runn1ng
You want to install Flash for Firefox, it will install Chrome by default.

~~~
joepvd
I did not install flash in FF, and I do not miss a thing. Sometimes there is
this warning that not all content could be displayed, but I would not have a
clue what functionality is missing.

------
spdustin
Here are some more proactive approaches that would support their desired
perception of caring about the browsing safety of their users:

* How about updating the radio buttons that appear when you "report this ad" to include "deceptive" as the reason for the report

* DoubleClick (by Google) serves the majority of these "Download now" ads that I've seen on sites that cater to the general public. Don't let advertisers run these ads. Do. Not. Allow. Many of them have "start download" in the plain text of the ad unit, and others are easily found by a bit of OCR on an image ad unit.

Please do not give me a Google-branded poncho (telling me how amazing it is
with an infomercial about its revolutionary Dry Living Experience™) when you
could patch the leaky roof to truly create a Dry Living Experience.

------
fiatjaf
The first thing they should do is harshly penalize websites with a lot of ads
in their search results.

------
jlgaddis
I hope they block Sourceforge and their deceptive "Download" buttons as well.

------
6stringmerc
I tend to enjoy these type of announcements and discussions regarding Google,
because it seems to remind the general population that while yes, Alphabet is
a diversified technology powerhouse, at its core, its most primal competency
is that of an advertising firm. A very successful advertising firm. Sort of
like how Jerry Jones was a very successful oil business tycoon before
diversifying his interests by way of purchasing the Dallas Cowboys and
'business-ing' it up to a multi-billion dollar brand. No oil, no Cowboys for
Jerry. No ads, no self-driving cars for Google.

------
caleblloyd
Awe man guess I can't use chrome to browse The Pirate Bay anymore...

~~~
throwaway7767
> Awe man guess I can't use chrome to browse The Pirate Bay anymore...

More likely, TPB stops running these particular shady ads, because chrome is
such a popular browser.

------
ChrisNorstrom
Too late google. I already intsalled ad blocker on every computer in the house
years ago because my parents would accidentally click "play" or "download" in
deceptive ads.

------
jcfrei
So who decides what to flag? Is google analyzing the behavior of chrome users
and then automatically flags websites? Or can users flag websites? I disabled
"Automatically report details of possible security incidents to Google" and
"Protect you and your device from dangerous sites" in the settings, will my
chrome browser still report these websites (in case it ever did)?

------
ksk
I don't see the difference between "Buy this Pill to lose weight" and
"Download this codec".

------
iwillreply
"Pretend to act, or look and feel, like a trusted entity — like your own
device or browser, or the website itself."

This is a broad statement. Taken at face value, this covers all native
advertising - with articles/images/videos/thumbnails/etc intended to fit in
with the content of the site/app.

~~~
TeMPOraL
If we can get rid of native advertising too, I'm all for it. Native
advertising is a special kind of evil.

------
kbart
It's a laudable initiative to protect average Joe from himself, but I don't
feel like Google (or any other company) deciding for _me_ what is dangerous.
They should at least provide this feature as an opt-out option. Still, better
option would be to educate more people of ad and script blockers.

~~~
lallysingh
[https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/99020?hl=en](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/99020?hl=en)

There's been a setting for this stuff forever.

------
Osiris
I hate using free hosted download services that some people use, especially on
forums, because there are ads with download buttons and real download buttons
and it's nearly impossible to tell which button needs to be clicked to
initiate a download.

------
mcintyre1994
Despite all the legal attacks in the UK and elsewhere, this is probably the
biggest blow to piracy sites so far. When one gets taken down another spins
up, but if you turn your adblocker off they all have these awful adverts.

~~~
undefined0
For organic traffic pirate sites, the biggest blow was Google's algorithm
change. For websites which used a freemium model, the biggest blow was PayPal,
Visa and Mastercard banning file sharing websites from using them. Todays
announcement was merely a nail in the coffin for those sites.

------
bpg_92
Welp, hopefully they will make it optional and we can turn it off.

------
rundmc
Amazing idea. It will save so many people form mal-links but even
sophisticated users from trying to figure out which is the real "download"
button

------
oliv__
I know these fake ads all suck and everyone hates them but somehow getting rid
of them feels like cutting off a little piece of what makes the web the web.

I kinda like this darker, more free-for-all, wild wild west side of the
Internet.

~~~
sergiotapia
Me too man, I remember the internet back then where everything was unique and
not a cookie-cutter bootstrap boilterplate. Want a nostalgia trip? Download
Opera (one of the early versions) - it'll pluck at your heart strings and make
you yearn for times when you had more personal responsibility and Google
wasn't there to infect everything with it's nanny browser. Hell, even Firefox
the last bastion of Freedom on the web, is following Chrome.

~~~
fixermark
Mostly because there's more benefit to be gained in making the web usable by
non-experts than in preserving the current status quo.

There's a reason the Wild West didn't stay wild.

~~~
sergiotapia
I agree, but it still sucks that it seems you're being sold something at every
turn. Websites are no longer there, just to be there. It's always about the
upsell or agenda.

~~~
cableshaft
That's one reason why I'm a little annoyed personal websites went mostly the
way of the Dodo and you can only expect friends to check things out if you
give them direct links to some trusted site from a site they use all the time,
like a link to a Youtube video from Facebook, or your Medium or Tumblr entry
from Twitter.

I still like designing personal websites, but it seems like a waste of time
now.

------
cabirum
Google should detect and block the buttons, not display full-screen warnings.

What next? "This site contains controversial views"? Or "Politically incorrect
website ahead"?

~~~
RansomTime
Google can't block elements on sites it does not control.

Warning users of phishing and warning users of speech that it finds
objectionable are 2 different things entirely.

~~~
cabirum
A deceptive button does not equal phishing. It just might (and most often
does) open a non-malicious popup with some ad. (non-malicious in a sense it
won't install ransomware to your PC)

And of course Google can easily integrate it's own ad blocker in Chrome if it
chooses so.

------
chinathrow
More censorship... no thanks.

------
astral303
This is a great move. Computers are extremely difficult and deceptive for
those who can't remember the myriad of rules and gotchas.

What we really need is an open pledge of non-deceptiveness, give it a catchy
name, and then advertise sites as conforming to it.

------
dfar1
It's about time google crack down on these ads. The download button is just
one of the many tactics. Any ads that show a guy with biceps three times the
size of his head should also be banned. Yahoo is infested with these
"sponsored" ads, and pretty much any other site that lives on ads revenue
only.

~~~
infogulch

        Pretend to act, or look and feel, like a trusted entity — like your own device or browser, or the website itself.
    

These are deceptive tactics, intended to confuse and trick.

What you describe is annoying and perhaps exploitative of humans desires, but
in the end no different from normal advertising and far less evil than the ads
described in the quote above. You want a full ad-blocker. Perhaps you're
already using one and want to justify it.

------
FussyZeus
There's an unexpectedly large number of commenters who seem to think that this
falls under free speech. Do I need to explain that the crap these ads usually
download when clicked is responsible for a ton of support calls, many of which
go to innocent kids on weekends just trying to unwind from school? :)

I'm kidding of course but seriously comparing blocking these buttons and
deceptive elements is not censorship, it's Google saying to these publishers
that if they don't get their shit together, that they will dissuade traffic
from visiting their sites. The only way to get the attention of bigger
publishing companies is to grab them by the revenue stream, you all know this.

------
userbinator
As I write this, the ranking of the comments here is... strange. Those who see
this as being yet another way of Google using their power to manipulate what
people see on the Internet are being heavily downvoted, while those agreeing
with the practice are not? That doesn't feel like HN to me.

I'm in the former group. This mollycoddling is just going to lead to more
users who can't decide for themselves whether something is suspicious or not
and are thus easier to deceive, which might be exactly what Google wants, but
I certainly do not think it is good for the Web as a whole (or even society in
general.) Being able to make these sorts of decisions of trust is an important
part of growing up in general, and I'd even say "finding the right download
button" could be considered a sort of right of passage to being an effective
_user_ of the Web, and not just a consumer.

~~~
Profan
You can't seriously be saying that people potentially running into malware
because they couldn't figure out with download button was the real one is
reasonable?

~~~
userbinator
You can't seriously be saying that not being able to figure out which download
button is the right one is reasonable? With experience, it's _extremely_ easy
to find the real one.

\- It's usually smaller and less prominent than the fake ones.

\- Mousing over it doesn't show a huge long URL to some external domain that
sounds ad-like.

Using adblock probably gets rid of a lot of the fake ones too, but the general
principle here is if it looks too good/easy to be true, it probably is. The
buttons that seem really enticing are the ones you _don 't_ want to click, and
it's that odd, not-very-attractive one that you want.

