I wonder what the criteria is for reported malicious ads to actually end up being removed and de-listed by Google?
"Murder for hire" (or any legally unambiguous high-profile crime enabler) -> Guaranteed removal. GReply: "Look how much we care"
"Run the dslreports malware infected" -> No meaningful action is taken by Google, they want 'dat DSLReports.exe $$$! GReply: <Crickets>
"Fuck yo and pwn your network" -> ? GReply: <Crickets>
The juicier question is:
How many straight up virus vendors have proliferated through Google ads and chrome 0-days? That's not going to be publicly available data. Why not? Seems like as a service operator, the right thing is informing clients who $BIGCO helped get infected with virii or malware. If notification upon discovery were mandated, at least some of the pool of desolation which undeniably exists (directly thanks to Google AdHoles) would be cleaned up. Is Google too proud to admit this happens? Protecting users, especially the most defenseless in the case of Ads, is consistently not a real priority for BigG.
Companies are full of people, and being humans we all makes mistakes or overlook things for too long. That would be okay if good faith efforts truly existed.
I'd pay to see the data on how many paid google ads ran for 'flashplayer' 'flash' and similar.
After watching people I know search for it (years ago) and click the first result (which was never the actual flashplayer) - they must of infected 10s of thousands.
Also terms like 'social security admin' 'new social sec card'- I watched my mom do the same thing - g-search, click first results.. start filling in info, second screen more personal info, third screen start to question whyu.. fourth screen - wait this ain't right.. sigh.
(Click here to start speedtest!)
I've reported them to google - but they still run.