
Google Legally Profits from Fraud on Its Platform - rahuldottech
https://www.extremetech.com/internet/294213-how-google-legally-profits-from-massive-fraud-on-its-platform
======
stevenicr
Was expecting to see various types fraud that google profits from, instead it
seems to be focused mainly on "(business) identity theft via google maps" \-
right?

Thought for sure there would be info about things like taking ads for
"flashplayer" that installed malware, things like taking money for ads for
"walmart" searches instead of just listed the organic result, because there is
implied threat of NOT listing walmart at the top due to competitor ads or
"gamed" search results.

Enabling places like grubhub and others to take over search results for
restaurants / small businesses and brands in the search results.

Censoring organic results, yet allowing paid listings to insert themselves
within.

I'm sure there are many more forms of fraud that could be brought up that are
mainly possible with google.

Basically looking for more perspective given the title, I think the title
could of been less broad given the article's info.

~~~
tracker1
Funnier than the flashplayer ads, is that "Google Chrome" was (is?) a heavy ad
target for malware.

------
ocdtrekkie
It's amazing how many scams and malware-serving websites are in Google Ads,
and how aggressively Google refuses to address it. I've actually had Googlers
(here on HN) go and report and have removed the malicious sites I reported,
just to see them back a handful of hours later, without so much as rotating
domain names out.

Google must be stripped of any profit from criminal activity on their
platform. When a fraudulent site is removed, Google should be forced to give
up all of the profits generated from it. Though I doubt Google would even make
the Fortune 500 if it did.

Section 230 absolutely _has_ to go for order and justice to prevail.

My go-to example for the particular type of predatory crimes Google knowingly
and willfully enables happens whenever a senior citizen searches for
"mapquest":
[https://www.google.com/search?q=mapquest](https://www.google.com/search?q=mapquest)

I actually took a call yesterday from someone who "couldn't get directions
from MapQuest without installing something". And if you look at the search
results, you'll see why: Ads that look like real search results that _claim_
to be MapQuest push the real MapQuest below the scroll fold. And computer-
illiterate individuals get taken advantage of, again and again and again. I've
been pointing out this example for six or seven years, and the same domains
that were operating then are still operating today, because Google simply
makes too much money from them to care.

If you work for Google, this is where your paycheck is coming from, and if you
use Google, this is the cost of your convenience.

~~~
ac29
> Section 230 absolutely has to go for order and justice to prevail.

For those who are unfamiliar with the reference, section 230 is a provision of
a telecommunications act that gives legal immunity to platform providers that
host user-provided content [0]. Getting rid of it would absolutely kill this
site and 99.99% of similar sites by effectively requiring all user generated
content to go through legal review. Absent review, a malevolently minded
individual could post libelous or other illegal content on a website and have
the site itself be sued. It would have a terribly chilling effect on the
internet as we know it.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act)

~~~
apostacy
I don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of 230, but it should be
narrowed. I think an ideal compromise would be that ubiquitous mega-platforms
should be held somewhat responsible for what their users post, under certain
circumstances.

If a platform is already protectively policing and curating content, then they
are not really a platform, they are more of a publisher.

Companies like Facebook and YouTube should absolutely be open to lawsuits for
what users post. They are already investing significant resources in
regulating what users post anyway, so they are taking responsibility for it.

I think even large websites should still get full 230 protection, if they only
have minimal moderation to remove spam or blatantly illegal content, like
Craigslist. Craigslist is much more of a neutral platform than Facebook.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
They’re investing significant resources in regulation because the public and
lawmakers have demanded they do. Craigslist can afford to be more neutral only
because nobody’s trying to organize cyberbullying campaigns or Rohingya
genocides through Craigslist.

------
bearcobra
Reminds me of the Reply All episode about locksmiths & Google Maps
([https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-
all/o2ho87](https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2ho87))

~~~
ijpoijpoihpiuoh
Interestingly enough, Google responded to that with a product offering:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=google+certified+locksmith](https://www.google.com/search?q=google+certified+locksmith)

Not sure how well it works, as I haven't needed a locksmith in a long time.
But for what it's worth, there is that.

~~~
dual_basis
Nothing comes up related to what you described, I just see a bunch of listings
for Angie's list.

~~~
spennant
You might need to disable your ad-blocker

------
zokier
And YouTube was built on exploiting flagrant copyright infringement, making it
easier than ever for the masses.

------
mcntall
It is such a difficult balance to be had since by taking a position of trying
to resolve any/all frauds in the platform, they create a can of worm that is
difficult, if not impossible to fill. The failure of finding all the frauds,
illegal activity would prohibitively expensive, if not destructive to the
platform itself (Think false-positives, etc).

For them, it is better/easier to say "we have the platform, we remove what we
are legally bound to remove, everything else is on the user to be mindful of".

------
paulcole
I mean so does Amazon, Uber, Airbnb, FedEx, and any other service provider who
hasn't 100% eliminated fraud (which is all of them).

------
throwaway5752
Why is there so much attention on Google?

It's market cap is $800B. Amazon and Microsoft are roughly $1T. Facebook is
$600B.

We're not a bunch of rubes here, to have this many articles proposing
sanctions and/or breakup of Google has all the fingerprints of coordinated
action. It's less than a month after the US president saying he would sue them
because he felt they didn't give conservative sources favorable enough index
ranking.

This has a stink to it.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
> Why is there so much attention on Google?

Amazon declared tomorrow "Prime Day" and a lot of workers are striking today
and/or tomorrow.

Throwing shade at Google _would be_ a good way to keep technical people from
paying attention to the plights of workers.

But it could also just be a coincidence.

~~~
notriddle
> But it could also just be a coincidence.

It's not Prime Day, and there's bad press about Google. It's Prime Day, and
there's still bad press about Google. Prime Day is over, and there will
continue to be bad press about Google.

The word I'd go for isn't "coincidence." It's something more like Captain
Obvious.

------
alexnewman
I cannot wait to publish our stats on how effective google captcha is blocking
bots.

~~~
o_p
Let me guess, 0%? :-)

~~~
alexnewman
We beat recaptcha v3 50% of the time v2 about 20%

------
temp1827
Just me or is the biggest company that likely has the highest % of their
revenue generated illegally AirBnB? By "illegal" I mean the listing does not
conform to local, state, and/or federal law for rental/vacation home rentals.

I've never heard of a situation where busted million-dollar rings of illegal
AirBnBs ever resulted in the company being forced to refund fees.

~~~
bassman9000
How quaint: a comment in a post critical to Google, by an account created an
hour ago, bashing not-Google.

------
ethanpil
How about eBay and Amazon knowingly selling counterfeit goods to the tune of
billions? Or Craigslist for sex workers?

I'm sure none of these companies started out with the intention of profiting
from illegal or immoral activities, but once they notice that prophet bump, it
becomes difficult for them to make changes, especially if no one really cares
or complains too much...

