Why is Google still serving dodgy ads?

CqtGLRGcukpy

I have two guesses why Google does this: 1) Google wants the most money, so they don't care to let dodgy ads thru. 2) There are more ads going out then can be reviewed, so they would rather have people report them, then they automatically reject the report until enough people report it, then an actual person may review it. As to why Google doesn't use AI to review them? Google would rather use the AI in a way that makes them more money, than review ads and if AI decides to take them down then that's less money for Google. (To be clear: I don't work for Google in any way, these are just my guesses)

andynrkri

My father saw a similar ad and got worried. The ad said you need to update your pdf version immediately. He uninstalled the YouTube because he knew it was irregular and thought his phone was hacked.

corranh

This one is not complicated…Because dodgy companies spend a lot of money on ads.

anonym29

I suspect this boils down to a cost/benefit tradeoff. The cost of strictly enforcing stated rules for ads is felt immediately and fully by Google. It is concrete, measurable, and probably non-insignificant; the benefit is essentially goodwill from the narrow sliver of the web that is verbal about this. That is intangible, difficult to measure, even harder to assign a reasonable dollar value to (meaning the ROI could look negative), and the benefit would accrue to parties other than Google who might not even notice.

qwerty_clicks

Keep up these efforts to name and shame. If Google won’t act on these things because it doesn’t make them money, because they are unregulated, or because they are lazy, they might because it still cuts their credibility and reputation. Especially here on HN where Google is no longer considered such a darling by developers and thinkers.

torginus

Do platform holders have a say in this? I'm sure if I submitted an app that on the iOS app store that mimicked a system warning that tried to scare people into giving me access, it would not pass the review process. If instead I decided to embed a WebView and later changed the html to do the same I would likely get booted from the app store (afair Apple's very particular about serving remote content in PWAs, and changing said content, even under benign circumstances). iOS seems to have less scareware and shady apps than Android anyways.

sippingabonedry

Because serving dodgy ads pays them a lot of money. The pivot is complete. 90% of the ads I see on YouTube are obvious scams. Many from untraceable shady overseas organizations. You can see the data if you report them. It's always some unheard of outfit out of Hong Kong or Brazil. I want to know who is funding this. You don't need to be Kreskin to figure this one out.

ArcHound

Man, Google is catching strays from all directions. I recently posted an article about their bot behaviour [0], only to be drowned in other more pressing issues. To comment on this one: as long as there is no backlash from their real customers (those that buy ads) nothing will change. [0] https://blog.miloslavhomer.cz/how-google-sees-your-site/

expedition32

Not just dodgy some are straight up illegal. They'll act if someone threatens to sue otherwise Google doesn't give a shit as long as they get paid.

poisonborz

Meta knowingly earns 10% of its _overall_ sales from scams. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/06/meta-reportedly-projected-10...

rectang

Ohhh, has anybody used AI to generate delicious statistics about how many ads served by various ad networks will get you hacked / violate the ad networks own policies?

tomxor

> I’m a big fan of Hanlon’s razor. There is a 3rd option: malicious stupidity / aka wilful ignorance. Google is a collection of individuals, so it's very likely both sides of Hanlon's razor are true: a little malice from those in control, persisting a state of stupidity for those executing the process. As others have pointed out, there will be resistance to improving a process that negatively impacts their bottom line. Incentives, dictate long term behaviour of organisations; whereas Hanlon's razor works better at an individual level IME.

conradfr

I have a website with some adsense ads (that pay for the server). I try blocking the most obvious scams by blocking the announcers but it's basically impossible because the same dodgy ones keep coming back with a new name. Also hard because they're not always in a language you understand. I don't think I should do all this work instead of the biggest ad company in the world just to earn 5€ per day, but I'm also not aware of any better alternative.

dotcoma

Because they are a dodgy company?

snailmailman

Google can reply and confirm whether or not a report did anything? I’ve never seen that. I report ads on YouTube all the time. I’ve reported ads for illegal drugs, illegal firearms, pornography, and all sorts of various scams. I’ve seen similar advertising to the example in this article, mimicking the phone’s UI. Ive reported them. I’ve never once seen Google reply to any of my reports to confirm what happened. I’ve always wondered, and since I continue to see the ads I just assume my reports go straight into a trash bin. The illegal firearm ad I saw (more than a year ago, now) I was so shocked that I took screenshots and reported it multiple times. The ad advertised that the weapon was “easy to sneak through security” and “didn’t require an id to purchase” I saw the ad several times across multiple weeks. I reported it every time. I don’t think Google ever did anything about it. If they did, it took them weeks

8cvor6j844qw_d6

I've seen suspiciously more malicious ads on older users phone (e.g., click to update Chrome ads) especially in-app ads.

HarHarVeryFunny

Google's ad-serving is dumb as a rock. It seems to be based just on things it thinks you may be interested in, even when it should be 100% obvious that they are not things you are going to buy. They should let people have more control over what ads they do and don't see. If Google served me ads on stuff I was interested in (I'd be happy to tell them) rather than women's clothing, they I might buy it. I'm a guy - show me as many skimpily dressed women as you like, but I have no need for women's clothes! Try it once or a hundred times it you must, but maybe after the millionth non-purchase you'd think they might figure it out and use that screen real-estate to serve an ad for something that my purchase history or what they know about me indicates I might have some interest in! Dumb as a rock.

drchaim

I’d love to know how much Google has made from accidental clicks since it started. I used to see my mum make a couple of mistaken clicks here and there on her computer; now on mobile it’s easily 10x worse. Sometimes because she doesn’t realize they’re ads, other times she tries to tap the X and it opens… It’s insane

dpkirchner

I think the obvious answer is they aren't held to account by regulators. If a few execs were sent to prison for defrauding their users (and investors for taking on so much risk) things would change overnight.

alpineman

Same for Facebook posts and comments inciting hatred