Google search for a local restaurant returns scammer’s ad as top result(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Google search for a local restaurant returns scammer’s ad as top result
https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1628948906657878016
235 comments
Sounds like India needs a single number for all emergency services instead of the fractured system they have now.
I believe 112 is already the single emergency number. It appears to be a relatively recent thing though.
Tbh, I (and most Indians) don't know how 112 works.
In the US, if you dial 9-1-1 for a medical emergency, in most regions, it is highly likely that an ambulance with EMT/paramedics will arrive in < 10 min.
In my city of Bengaluru, there are, no exaggeration, good hospitals within 2-5 km of any point in the city. Most of these hospitals have ambulance fleets that can get to you fast, within 10-15 minutes. Anecdotally, people prefer calling these hospitals directly for ambulance.
Caveat: I am not recommending hospital ambulances over 112, but just saying that I am not aware of 1-1-2 response time and effectiveness.
In the US, if you dial 9-1-1 for a medical emergency, in most regions, it is highly likely that an ambulance with EMT/paramedics will arrive in < 10 min.
In my city of Bengaluru, there are, no exaggeration, good hospitals within 2-5 km of any point in the city. Most of these hospitals have ambulance fleets that can get to you fast, within 10-15 minutes. Anecdotally, people prefer calling these hospitals directly for ambulance.
Caveat: I am not recommending hospital ambulances over 112, but just saying that I am not aware of 1-1-2 response time and effectiveness.
That’s totally understandable, I learnt the 100-101-102 numbers I think in school and wasn’t well aware of 112. Thoughtful if I’m not mistaken calling even 911 will redirect you correctly.
> In my city of Bengaluru, there are, no exaggeration, good hospitals within 2-5 km of any point in the city. Most of these hospitals have ambulance fleets that can get to you fast, within 10-15 minutes. Anecdotally, people prefer calling these hospitals directly for ambulance.
Oh yeah certainly, it’s similar here in Mumbai. Having said that fortunately we’ve never had to call one in an emergency.
> In my city of Bengaluru, there are, no exaggeration, good hospitals within 2-5 km of any point in the city. Most of these hospitals have ambulance fleets that can get to you fast, within 10-15 minutes. Anecdotally, people prefer calling these hospitals directly for ambulance.
Oh yeah certainly, it’s similar here in Mumbai. Having said that fortunately we’ve never had to call one in an emergency.
It also sounds like Google knows to do the right thing when the country government they operate in force them to.
Maybe. But it's easier to say "dial 911" when a country has 911. If India doesn't have something like 911, what is google supposed to recommend? Call 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3!
I don't know, google maps seems to find the phone numbers for places pretty easily. Why is search any different?
Advertisers pay and it's reasonable from financial perspective for Google to turn a blind eye before any complaints.
Their main business is ads, not search.
Their main business is ads, not search.
I guess it's too bad that having a purely financial perspective just isn't reasonable in most cases. I don't understand why people think that's a good excuse to harm and endanger lives, what a wild take
They find phone numbers for places if you are specific enough. If you search, phone number for restaurant, you get a list of restaurants. Google isn't employing someone to curate that list.
Actually, if I google "phone number ambulance" in America, I get a bunch of random ambulance companies and not 911.
If I just google "ambulance" I get stuff about the recent movie.
Actually, if I google "phone number ambulance" in America, I get a bunch of random ambulance companies and not 911.
If I just google "ambulance" I get stuff about the recent movie.
Thanks, that jingle will be in my head all day...!
Not sure why there no direct replies to this, but 108 is a dedicated line for all emergencies. Interestingly 112 and 911 have also worked for me in the past when butt dialed.
Cell networks have a special "call emergency" code, which doesn't actually call a number at all; phones are required by the (ETSI) standard to translate dialling 112 into the call emergency code, and also to translate the national emergency number in the country they are in. Mostly, they solve this by treating 911 and 999 as the emergency number everywhere.
This is so the cell network can prioritise emergency calls and also will allow them to be made even when other calls are blocked (e.g. if you have no credit, or you only have signal on another network, or even if your phone is blocked by IMEI because it was reported stolen).
Landlines are different, they do treat emergency calls as a call to the emergency number and whether they will reroute another country's emergency number to the one where you are will depend on the specific exchange you are connected to (e.g. in the UK, 999 will work on all landlines; 112 on almost all except the oldest analogue exchanges and 911 on most but missing some older exchanges).
This is so the cell network can prioritise emergency calls and also will allow them to be made even when other calls are blocked (e.g. if you have no credit, or you only have signal on another network, or even if your phone is blocked by IMEI because it was reported stolen).
Landlines are different, they do treat emergency calls as a call to the emergency number and whether they will reroute another country's emergency number to the one where you are will depend on the specific exchange you are connected to (e.g. in the UK, 999 will work on all landlines; 112 on almost all except the oldest analogue exchanges and 911 on most but missing some older exchanges).
That's a lot of work&time. Until then Google should not allow bullshit advertising.
Yes, because the US and other nations invested in a standarized system with 91 (112 here), in a corrupt nation that wont happen.
New business idea: Mug the fake ambulance drivers.
Simple legislative fix: entitle the victim (small business) to quickly and easily claim a trademark infringement on an ad, and claw back 100% of Google's revenue on that ad. And let Google be civilly liable, if they choose to contest such a trademark claim and they're in the wrong.
Inspired by YouTube's DMCA claim system (or my superficial understanding of it). If there's a "bug bounty" on fraud, there will be an enthusiastic market for identifying it. If ad fraud doesn't reliably pay, the fraud market will be disincentivized. Finally, Google itself will have incentives less mis-aligned with its users'; its current incentive system being "the fraudsters pay us more; therefore we love fraud!"
Inspired by YouTube's DMCA claim system (or my superficial understanding of it). If there's a "bug bounty" on fraud, there will be an enthusiastic market for identifying it. If ad fraud doesn't reliably pay, the fraud market will be disincentivized. Finally, Google itself will have incentives less mis-aligned with its users'; its current incentive system being "the fraudsters pay us more; therefore we love fraud!"
> If there's a "bug bounty" on fraud, there will be an enthusiastic market for identifying it.
Not to mention a cottage industry of creating then "solving" the ad fraud. I imagine Google's solution for this would be 100% Yelp.
Not to mention a cottage industry of creating then "solving" the ad fraud. I imagine Google's solution for this would be 100% Yelp.
The FTC has jurisdiction here. No new law is required. Complaints need to be made.
I think the "fix" proposed here is that it be as frictionless as sending a DMCA notice. Is what you're talking about that easy?
Sounds like we need scammy middleware between regular people and the complaint system to keep complaints flowing, monetize later!
Sounds like we need scammy middleware between regular people and the complaint system to keep complaints flowing, monetize later!
It is easier than sending a DMCA notice.
https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/faq
https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/faq
[deleted]
If a real and thorny problem seems to have a trivial answer.. there's a good chance the trivial answer is incorrect.
Amazon has a system like this, where you can "claim" listings. It's how scam products get all those five star reviews for some other profuct. They find a t-shirt or some little thing doing well and file claim after claim until they win the listing.
Amazon has a system like this, where you can "claim" listings. It's how scam products get all those five star reviews for some other profuct. They find a t-shirt or some little thing doing well and file claim after claim until they win the listing.
> If a real and thorny problem seems to have a trivial answer.. there's a good chance the trivial answer is incorrect.
Two of my favorite H. L. Mencken quotes:
"There's always an easy solution to every human problem; Neat, plausible and wrong."
"The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."
And this one:
"Any proposal must be viewed as follows. Do not pay overly much attention to the benefits that might be delivered were the law in question to be properly enforced, rather one needs to consider the harm done by the improper enforcement of this particular piece of legislation, whatever it might be."
-Lyndon B. Johnson
Two of my favorite H. L. Mencken quotes:
"There's always an easy solution to every human problem; Neat, plausible and wrong."
"The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."
And this one:
"Any proposal must be viewed as follows. Do not pay overly much attention to the benefits that might be delivered were the law in question to be properly enforced, rather one needs to consider the harm done by the improper enforcement of this particular piece of legislation, whatever it might be."
-Lyndon B. Johnson
Law makers seem to universally ignore the unintended consequences of the laws they propose or endorse.
I wish there were a requirement to list all the foreseeable consequences of any law that's proposed, both positive consequences and negative ones.
I wish there were a requirement to list all the foreseeable consequences of any law that's proposed, both positive consequences and negative ones.
> I wish there were a requirement to list all the foreseeable consequences of any law that's proposed, both positive consequences and negative ones.
Please enumerate all the positive and negative consequences of your requirement!
Please enumerate all the positive and negative consequences of your requirement!
"all the foreseeable consequences"
If this was feasible why wouldn't you do this for every decision in life.
If this was feasible why wouldn't you do this for every decision in life.
For major life decisions, I do. Don't you?
Public policy affects millions of lives. I don't think enumerating 1st order or 2nd order effects is too onerous. And if it is, that's why government officials have assistants and interns.
Public policy affects millions of lives. I don't think enumerating 1st order or 2nd order effects is too onerous. And if it is, that's why government officials have assistants and interns.
Ironic, coming from LBJ.
Why ironic? Honest question. I do not know enough about the career of LBJ to get it. My understanding is that he was an extremely effective legislator. A bit of a bastard, but very effective.
Some of the legislation he pushed through, mostly in the Great Society program, could be poster children for "the harm done by the improper enforcement of this particular piece of legislation".
Yea, this is the answer. If it’s easy to file a complaint, scammers will just file a million complaints to (wrongly) win 1%, and walk away with the $
Well, even if it’s hard… look at accident attorneys in the US. They might not technically be scammers, but man does it feel close to it.
The DMCA shields content providers from copyright liability. What you’re probably thinking of is YouTube’s voluntary ContentID system and related policies that they started doing to make Viacom happy. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the DMCA.
Broadly speaking, when someone infringes trademark, they are entitled to the damages done, which are likely much greater than the ad revenue here.
Broadly speaking, when someone infringes trademark, they are entitled to the damages done, which are likely much greater than the ad revenue here.
This is already illegal. Mom and Pop businesses don't have the resourced to wage legal battles and in the time it would take to get an injunction, the scam has more than paid for itself. The solution here is for Amex and Google to do their jobs properly.
Since lot of sme are impacted, could they join and sue ? I am not an American so could be wrong here - could class action suites be of help here ?
They could maybe form a class action suit but those take ages too. The legal system isn't the solution here.
How is it a solution to say that successful businesses should voluntarily shave their profits? Why do we look to these disreputable actors to reform themselves?
Simple legislative fix
Unless you have a magic wand, simplicity usually masks conflicting incentives backed by lots of political, financial, and legal capital. It's like looking at a war and saying 'why don't people just stop fighting, because peace would be nicer.'
The social default is to look at problems as examples of individual deviance from a principled ideal. It's more instructive to look at them as examples of resource mobilization in contested/conflicted spaces. The italicized words are terms of art in social science that represent two prominent schools of thought (which are themselves in competition).
Unless you have a magic wand, simplicity usually masks conflicting incentives backed by lots of political, financial, and legal capital. It's like looking at a war and saying 'why don't people just stop fighting, because peace would be nicer.'
The social default is to look at problems as examples of individual deviance from a principled ideal. It's more instructive to look at them as examples of resource mobilization in contested/conflicted spaces. The italicized words are terms of art in social science that represent two prominent schools of thought (which are themselves in competition).
Any chance you have model legislation (for me to use)?
Two years ago, I got fluffed up about scammers claiming unclaimed businesses. Like the food delivery startups (like Doctorow mentions).
I started talking to my reps (city council, state) but haven't gotten any further. And I don't know where to start drafting the legislation.
With some sort of resolution or model legislation, I can shop it around, get the ball rolling. Like chamber of commerce, some scammed businesses, my representatives.
Thanks.
Two years ago, I got fluffed up about scammers claiming unclaimed businesses. Like the food delivery startups (like Doctorow mentions).
I started talking to my reps (city council, state) but haven't gotten any further. And I don't know where to start drafting the legislation.
With some sort of resolution or model legislation, I can shop it around, get the ball rolling. Like chamber of commerce, some scammed businesses, my representatives.
Thanks.
Google is already fairly strict this, at least for bigger company trademark keywords. It falls through the cracks with you are talking about SMBs.
Or in other words, Google is not strict with this, but goes out of its way to protect other big business
[deleted]
It has always boggled my mind that you're even allowed to publish ads targeting other companies brand names as keywords without being the verified owner of that company.
But I understand Google here. It's probably their single biggest income stream. Our company is using a very big chunk of our ad words budget targeting our own brand name to make sure it's on top. More than for any other keyword by far. And I imagine many others do the same.
But I understand Google here. It's probably their single biggest income stream. Our company is using a very big chunk of our ad words budget targeting our own brand name to make sure it's on top. More than for any other keyword by far. And I imagine many others do the same.
This is an underrated comment.
Google are enabling fraud on a massive scale by permitting the hijacking of established names and brands. Often brands or names that some small family company has worked for years to build a reputation for.
We do indeed live in a world where tech and capitalism have birthed some sort of horrific offspring that’s choking us all.
Google are enabling fraud on a massive scale by permitting the hijacking of established names and brands. Often brands or names that some small family company has worked for years to build a reputation for.
We do indeed live in a world where tech and capitalism have birthed some sort of horrific offspring that’s choking us all.
But that's only part of it. Google will also happily serve up ads for fake bank websites that will steal your credentials. Google will happily serve up ads for a lot of malicious content on the Internet.
Google are not only making it worse because of advertising, they're making it worse by facilitating scammers and fraudsters and various other criminals.
All because their systems are so automated as to eschew any review that might actually make advertising on the Internet slightly less distasteful (and maybe the FBI wouldn't be recommending the choking off of Google's primary income stream)
Google are not only making it worse because of advertising, they're making it worse by facilitating scammers and fraudsters and various other criminals.
All because their systems are so automated as to eschew any review that might actually make advertising on the Internet slightly less distasteful (and maybe the FBI wouldn't be recommending the choking off of Google's primary income stream)
Let me correct that for you - the systems are automated to provide plausible deniability, just like with the recent Hertz scandal. As soon as you admit there may be a problem with the automation the door is cracked open to admit a lawsuit in. It's the equivalent of "computer says", and the legal system is greased to permit such abuse.
The US doesn't have a smalltime corruption problem, you don't bribe your local cop, it has a bigmoney corruption problem as seen (again) here.
The US doesn't have a smalltime corruption problem, you don't bribe your local cop, it has a bigmoney corruption problem as seen (again) here.
Yep, but try to put Google ads on a page with naked or scantily dressed people, you'll get banned real fast. =)
Stealing and impersonation good, sex bad.
Stealing and impersonation good, sex bad.
I don't think sex bad is a Google problem as much the US problem. After all, it's not just ads and it's not just Google.
People in the US have this puritanical view on sex -> it is inherited by Silicon Valley -> it gets forced onto the rest of us.
Since the rest of us are forced to rely on US-based products in some capacity (app stores, payment processors, CDNs...), you can't make anything sex-related even in places where sex work is viewed far more openly than in the US.
People in the US have this puritanical view on sex -> it is inherited by Silicon Valley -> it gets forced onto the rest of us.
Since the rest of us are forced to rely on US-based products in some capacity (app stores, payment processors, CDNs...), you can't make anything sex-related even in places where sex work is viewed far more openly than in the US.
To be fair, in this case it's more racketeering.
You could replace Google with Amazon and the same thing is happening there with fake reviews and product takedowns.
If we keep going down the capitalism route,
We are going to end up with 10 'scammer' ad in the top 10 result, each and everyone fighting each other with more ad budget and lower profit margins.
In the end, the website owner won't even need a website.
We are going to end up with 10 'scammer' ad in the top 10 result, each and everyone fighting each other with more ad budget and lower profit margins.
In the end, the website owner won't even need a website.
I disagree that it’s a scam to advertise over someone else’s name as long as it’s clear and you’re not trying to confuse the user. I’ve found better alternatives than what I was looking for through competitor ads. I’ve had this happen on Google and the App Store and I appreciate it.
It gives newer, or less well-known, companies a chance to gain exposure. And consumers like me might learn about a superior option they didn’t know previously.
Edit: Thought experiment. Over in the Figma thread there’s a lot of talk about trying to ween themselves and others off Adobe products. So is it really a negative for the industry and consumers if Figma shows ads on searches for Photoshop?
It gives newer, or less well-known, companies a chance to gain exposure. And consumers like me might learn about a superior option they didn’t know previously.
Edit: Thought experiment. Over in the Figma thread there’s a lot of talk about trying to ween themselves and others off Adobe products. So is it really a negative for the industry and consumers if Figma shows ads on searches for Photoshop?
> as long as it’s clear and you’re not trying to confuse the user.
Fair enough, but a lot of them are trying to confuse the customer, as Cory Doctorow found
Fair enough, but a lot of them are trying to confuse the customer, as Cory Doctorow found
Yea, I think it should be allowed to advertise in another brand, but it should draw heightened scrutiny.
If the ad at all appears to originate from the company that is the target of the ad keyword it should be rejected or require verification that it’s from the company.
Google could even charge a $10 “review fee” for ads placed directly on competitors keywords (per ad treatment, not per ad treatment per keyword) to discourage this behavior from scammers
If the ad at all appears to originate from the company that is the target of the ad keyword it should be rejected or require verification that it’s from the company.
Google could even charge a $10 “review fee” for ads placed directly on competitors keywords (per ad treatment, not per ad treatment per keyword) to discourage this behavior from scammers
> is it really a negative for the industry and consumers if Figma shows ads on searches for Photoshop?
Yes, because Google's intended and actual outcome is companies are blackmailed into paying to compete on advertising for their own names. Which is highly likely a navigation query.
It would be different if someone googled "photoshop alternatives" or sth
Yes, because Google's intended and actual outcome is companies are blackmailed into paying to compete on advertising for their own names. Which is highly likely a navigation query.
It would be different if someone googled "photoshop alternatives" or sth
If Figma is running an ad on the Photoshop keyword, then it should be blatantly obvious that it's not an ad for Photoshop.
Like "Figma: an Alternative to Photoshop" (you can tell I'm not an advertising copywriter).
Like "Figma: an Alternative to Photoshop" (you can tell I'm not an advertising copywriter).
> Our company is using a very big chunk of our ad words budget targeting our own brand name to make sure it's on top.
You shouldn't need to do this. Googles ad auction on search multiplies your bid by a quality score when deciding which ad to show. A site that satisfies what the user is looking for will have a high quality score, whereas the 'wrong' site (ie. one for a competitor) will have a low quality score - partly determined by the user clicking the back button when they find they have been misled.
That means that if your competitors are pumping $100 into becoming the top search result, you perhaps only need to put $1 into getting the same ad spot.
If you are finding that not to be true, then it might be because your site is low quality for some reason (for example, maybe it doesn't load for some users in some browsers), or maybe your site doesn't have the info people are looking for when they search your company name.
You shouldn't need to do this. Googles ad auction on search multiplies your bid by a quality score when deciding which ad to show. A site that satisfies what the user is looking for will have a high quality score, whereas the 'wrong' site (ie. one for a competitor) will have a low quality score - partly determined by the user clicking the back button when they find they have been misled.
That means that if your competitors are pumping $100 into becoming the top search result, you perhaps only need to put $1 into getting the same ad spot.
If you are finding that not to be true, then it might be because your site is low quality for some reason (for example, maybe it doesn't load for some users in some browsers), or maybe your site doesn't have the info people are looking for when they search your company name.
This doesn't seem to work very well at all.
I frequently search for a particular vendor of something by name only to be served another similar vendor as the top result.
It feels like it should be doable to serve these results in some sort of "you may also like these similar vendors" box or something like that which would massively improve the user experience
It doesn't work if the real company isn't an advertiser, or if they are an advertiser but aren't in this auction due to their targeting rules or being out of budget.
Appreciate these insights. I'm just getting into setting this up for my company.
Seeing an ad for another vendor is bad. Seeing an ad that looks like what you searched for but is actually malware[1] is worse.
[1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-abuse...
[1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-abuse...
I'd agree on this.
For a while I'd bid on the names of competitors (Not being scammy - just trying to win the #1 result placement); however, I found I was spending a bunch with basically zero conversions because - I assume, if someone is searching for something, they're expecting that something, so when they click it and realize it's not - they just exit.
On the other hand, bidding my own name: pennies.
For a while I'd bid on the names of competitors (Not being scammy - just trying to win the #1 result placement); however, I found I was spending a bunch with basically zero conversions because - I assume, if someone is searching for something, they're expecting that something, so when they click it and realize it's not - they just exit.
On the other hand, bidding my own name: pennies.
> Not being scammy - just trying to win the #1 result placement
From the end user's point of view, how is "win the #1 result placement" for a competitor's name not a blatant scam?
From the end user's point of view, how is "win the #1 result placement" for a competitor's name not a blatant scam?
Scammy would be pretending to be the other brand.
It's the difference between bidding on the keyword BrandX when my company is ABCBrand with an ad that says:
"Come shop at BrandX" .. when it's going to my ABCBrand, and possibly even having a landing page pretending to be BrandX
vs.
"Come shop at ABCBrand" ... and going to my ABCBrand, as it should.
It's the difference between bidding on the keyword BrandX when my company is ABCBrand with an ad that says:
"Come shop at BrandX" .. when it's going to my ABCBrand, and possibly even having a landing page pretending to be BrandX
vs.
"Come shop at ABCBrand" ... and going to my ABCBrand, as it should.
The same rules that allow scammers to look like a legit result allow smaller firms to compete with the Best Buys and Targets of the world by advertising their local outfits on searches for "Best Buy" and "Target." Without that allowance, organic search degenerates into a winner-take-all system and one of two things happens: (a) small places are just locked out of search traffic, (b) they invest that money in SEO instead of ads and the organic results get worse as people try and trick Google into thinking their site is Best Buy or Target.
There should be a solution to the problem of the scammers. Banning advertising being allowed to show up on someone else's organic search results ain't it.
There should be a solution to the problem of the scammers. Banning advertising being allowed to show up on someone else's organic search results ain't it.
Maybe this was the case before, but it certainly feels less like this now. Auto OEM ads are the biggest offenders.
I can plug OEM 1 + Model1 and get two to three ads for OEM2/3/4 before I get the result I was looking for.
I can plug OEM 1 + Model1 and get two to three ads for OEM2/3/4 before I get the result I was looking for.
It was not allowed in the early days of google adsense, but guess it was to profitable to not allow it.
It may not be their biggest revenue stream, but I'll bet it's critical to Google for another reason. Advertising is somewhat zero sum. You can invent a more effective way to advertise, but the total dollars that a business will spend on advertising will remain the same, just through the new channel. So how do you increase revenue once you have captured the market? Make businesses spend to defend their own brand against imposters. This is something that didn't even exist prior to online advertising and could get businesses to actually increase their ad spend over what they would have previously. The internet is becoming more dystopian every day.
Reminds me of the guy who made his shed the top rated restaurant on Trip Advisor
https://www.vice.com/en/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the-to...
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shed_at_Dulwich
https://www.vice.com/en/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the-to...
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shed_at_Dulwich
That was incredibly funny.
I can even agree with Trip Advisors' reasoning that their main concern are not fake restaurants, but dodgy reviews.
Nevertheless, this never should have been allowed to slip through the cracks.
It wasn't just a make pretend great London eatery on Trip Advisors.
It was fucking number 1 in a city with literally 10s of thousands rated restaurants.
I can even agree with Trip Advisors' reasoning that their main concern are not fake restaurants, but dodgy reviews.
Nevertheless, this never should have been allowed to slip through the cracks.
It wasn't just a make pretend great London eatery on Trip Advisors.
It was fucking number 1 in a city with literally 10s of thousands rated restaurants.
Think about it. Pushing a fake restaurant to number 1 is not that hard. No real people eat at it and so no real person writes a less-than-five-star review. Real restaurants have off nights. Or maybe they have a snooty patron that is overly picky. Real restaurants-- even the best of them-- get a few one star reviews.
So if you're looking at averages, there's no way that real can compete with fake.
So if you're looking at averages, there's no way that real can compete with fake.
Maybe "average rating" shouldn't be a more-heavily-weighted metric than "confirmed existence of dining establishment".
In Google maps, the top result for a locksmith in my city is a company that doesn't actually exist.
The company has no website, just a toll-free number. The business name doesn't match anything in the state records. If you zoom in, the address given is literally in some kind of alley. The business has 4.5 stars and all of the reviews are in vague, broken English that never contain any details about the service or why they needed it.
My guess is that when you call them, they take your info and then call a real locksmith in the area and pocket the difference.
The company has no website, just a toll-free number. The business name doesn't match anything in the state records. If you zoom in, the address given is literally in some kind of alley. The business has 4.5 stars and all of the reviews are in vague, broken English that never contain any details about the service or why they needed it.
My guess is that when you call them, they take your info and then call a real locksmith in the area and pocket the difference.
CBC's Marketplace did an investigation about this years ago. https://youtu.be/bvlzZnhZhrc?t=858
TL;DW: this is widespread in most cities in Canada. Scammers just setup fake businesses on google to have your nearest locksmith be some generic chain.
I would expect this to be the same for the US.
TL;DW: this is widespread in most cities in Canada. Scammers just setup fake businesses on google to have your nearest locksmith be some generic chain.
I would expect this to be the same for the US.
The “Reply All” podcast had an episode about this: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2ho87
Almost all Google search for businesses are "scam". If you search for locksmith, plumber, heating and cooling, lawn, mechanic. It's all fronts often in eastern europe masking like local business and taking a hefty cut.
Parasites like this have also colonized plumbing, locksmiths etc, as has been discussed on this site in the past.
Seems like straight up fraud to me.
Seems like straight up fraud to me.
A lot of the institutions who historically would have prevented fraud seem to have abdicated their responsibilities in the last few dozen years.
Doctorow calls them out in the thread: AmEx and Google in particular.
Doctorow calls them out in the thread: AmEx and Google in particular.
Calling out a megacorporation for not defending your rights is oxymoronic by the extreme. You didn't stop other products from killing people by asking Walmart nicely to make sure it's safe.
Isn't there a small thing called "regulators" for this? Or is US government now so fundamentally broken that it can't even provide its basic function anymore and has to be replaced by "pretty-please" appeals to megacorporations?
Isn't there a small thing called "regulators" for this? Or is US government now so fundamentally broken that it can't even provide its basic function anymore and has to be replaced by "pretty-please" appeals to megacorporations?
> Isn't there a small thing called "regulators" for this? Or is the US...
The latter, partly.
But a bigger problem is that actually-functional government is no longer part of the worldview of most of the public. Ditto for serious consequences for the responsible elected officials, when government fails at its basic functions.
Without those things, it is really not possible to sustain a high-functioning government.
The latter, partly.
But a bigger problem is that actually-functional government is no longer part of the worldview of most of the public. Ditto for serious consequences for the responsible elected officials, when government fails at its basic functions.
Without those things, it is really not possible to sustain a high-functioning government.
Yeah... but replacing it with a corporation that doesn't even pretend to have an incentive to help you (especially when its monopolistic in their field like Google/Apple/Microsoft are) doesn't make things better. You can't even vote.
More importantly, it makes them irreplaceable since competing products from smaller companies simply cannot afford policing at such level while the bad actors are running around unpunished.
More importantly, it makes them irreplaceable since competing products from smaller companies simply cannot afford policing at such level while the bad actors are running around unpunished.
Quite true. But a huge number of people seem to believe in the mega-corporate "government is the problem" capitalist dystopia. Where you can - at most - vote your purchasing dollars for corporations which have managed to convince you that they are somewhat less evil.
So long as the people believe that their only choice is "which king will rule over us?", their society will remain a monarchy.
So long as the people believe that their only choice is "which king will rule over us?", their society will remain a monarchy.
Nevermind that if you are relying primarily on agents of the state to prevent fraud, your society is already fundamentally broken.
The state enforcing laws using the threat of violence (the only enforcement mechanism they have) is a last resort, not a first. Institutions having the desire to not create a broken world should be the first line of defense.
Google doesn't give a fuck anymore, and are fine watching the world burn now. I personally speculate that most Googlers today are simply there for the paycheck, and their apathy about the way their products work reflects that.
The state enforcing laws using the threat of violence (the only enforcement mechanism they have) is a last resort, not a first. Institutions having the desire to not create a broken world should be the first line of defense.
Google doesn't give a fuck anymore, and are fine watching the world burn now. I personally speculate that most Googlers today are simply there for the paycheck, and their apathy about the way their products work reflects that.
I've had a few conversations with Google employees, and every one of them had a faint tinge of koolaid on their breath.
>Nevermind that if you are relying primarily on agents of the state to prevent fraud, your society is already fundamentally broken.
Huh? Why's this? It seems like a core component of a functional state to me, and if the state is doing a decent job, why should a bunch of private parties be sticking their noses in too?
Huh? Why's this? It seems like a core component of a functional state to me, and if the state is doing a decent job, why should a bunch of private parties be sticking their noses in too?
The same argument comes up in atheism-- "if you don't believe in [eternal damnation], what stops you from just killing people indiscriminately?" It reflects the sad state of the asker's moral compass.
Same with Catholics and confession-- another broken system in which you are free to sin arbitrarily through confession and repentance. The point of the doctrine itself is to transcend the cycle and be better than that. (I know little about it but I'm told there is a similar mechanism in Hinduism re: karma.)
Fear of god/state/consequence keeps people in line, but it's a failsafe, not the governor. The only thing preventing fraud in your tribe should not be the intangible threat of later consequence from a greater authority. You're supposed to respect each other enough to not prey on your own kind.
Another take is looking at crimes like CSA. The state punishes it when it is brought to their attention, but that does not absolve the community from necessarily participating in its policing ahead of that-- the community are the ones best positioned to detect, intervene, and enforce social norms around it in the first place.
Same with Catholics and confession-- another broken system in which you are free to sin arbitrarily through confession and repentance. The point of the doctrine itself is to transcend the cycle and be better than that. (I know little about it but I'm told there is a similar mechanism in Hinduism re: karma.)
Fear of god/state/consequence keeps people in line, but it's a failsafe, not the governor. The only thing preventing fraud in your tribe should not be the intangible threat of later consequence from a greater authority. You're supposed to respect each other enough to not prey on your own kind.
Another take is looking at crimes like CSA. The state punishes it when it is brought to their attention, but that does not absolve the community from necessarily participating in its policing ahead of that-- the community are the ones best positioned to detect, intervene, and enforce social norms around it in the first place.
> The only thing preventing fraud in your tribe should not be the intangible threat of later consequence from a greater authority. You're supposed to respect each other enough to not prey on your own kind.
This moral argument may be applicable to individual people, but this is yet another example that companies under the current system (and, by extension, their governing bodies) only have one goal: maximizing profits.
In the abscence of fear of punishment by a more powerful actor, if the common good gets in the way of profits, the latter will always prevail.
This moral argument may be applicable to individual people, but this is yet another example that companies under the current system (and, by extension, their governing bodies) only have one goal: maximizing profits.
In the abscence of fear of punishment by a more powerful actor, if the common good gets in the way of profits, the latter will always prevail.
Okay. Society is fundamentally broken. Our "last resort" seems to be completely dysfunctional. And the institutions you want as the first line of defense mostly don't exist.
Now what?
Now what?
It's broken by design. AKA regulatory capture by business. Ever since America made corruption (paying money to politicians) legal it's just been downhill. Enjoy!
Regulatory capture has nothing to do with corruption. Regulatory capture is when businesses benefit from complex regulation because the competitive moat that the regulation gives them is more valuable than the cost (so high that only huge companies can afford it) to comply. Large businesses like moats and regulators like to regulate. No coordination required. Actual corruption, at least in the US, is much less common.
Straight-up fraud that will never be prosecuted.
AGs and DAs don't care about small-scale scams and ripoffs and cheats, generally aren't equipped to investigate them, and if the party committing fraud is in another country are likely to throw up their hands and say "not in my jurisdiction."
This will stop with tough legislation and penalties that force Google to give up a percentage of its annual revenue. It will never happen in the United States.
AGs and DAs don't care about small-scale scams and ripoffs and cheats, generally aren't equipped to investigate them, and if the party committing fraud is in another country are likely to throw up their hands and say "not in my jurisdiction."
This will stop with tough legislation and penalties that force Google to give up a percentage of its annual revenue. It will never happen in the United States.
How is this different to what the real estate agents do?
If you try to sell property on your own, you'll get many unsolicited offers from real estate agents, sometimes claiming they already have a buyer and sometimes this is even true.
If you try to sell property on your own, you'll get many unsolicited offers from real estate agents, sometimes claiming they already have a buyer and sometimes this is even true.
Maybe real estate agents are also useless parasites?
Totally different. If an agent is actually an agent, it isn't fraud. If an agent legitimately has a buyer lined up already, depending on the market, it's likely worth the 3%.
It is different because the real estate agents typically don’t pretend to be the buyers.
Random Real Estate agents likely don't go to potential buyers and claim that they're you.
My questions surround: where's the (society saving) "parasite lawyers" going to town in a shark frenzy eating these criminals business models? It is not as if these small business fraud scams are not omnipresent in modern society... why are not attorneys making bank and DA's making headlines shutting these clear and obvious public criminals down?
Because Google and the other ad networks have successfully convinced everyone in power that they aren’t the scammers, and that the people paying for the ads are. Those people are tiny fly-by-night operators with nothing to lose (and not worth anyone going after).
I’m just amazed Cory Doctorow of all people doesn’t use uBlock and got duped by this. I’ve always seen Google Ads as about as reliable as the fake download buttons on crappy file websites. You tune them out or block them.
We shouldn't need to use uBlock.
It is easy to assign blame to victims.
This has happened to bycicle owners. If you don't lock your bike it's your fault your bike gets stolen. But theft is illegal. Theft is if someone wants to take something that doesn't belong to him and then executes the taking. Locks don't change this fact. It just makes the execution of the crime more difficult.
I have a vision of an utopia where people can leave all things unlocked. If they get stolen, the thief gets identified immediately and he has to give the things back. No punishment at all or only a token punishment. This should work because sanctions are not neccessary if no harm was done. Today we punish caught thieves somewhat harshly because we need to deter people from becoming thieves. If we can stop thefts just after the fact, token punishment will suffice. If someone repeatedly tries to steal things in that utopia we could offer therapy or try to find out the underlying cause of the attempted thefts. That's utopia: everything works out perfectly for everybody (shrugs).
Today we lock our browsing experience using uBlock just because we have to. We also have to lock our bikes, because we have to. Sorry for the tangent.
It is easy to assign blame to victims.
This has happened to bycicle owners. If you don't lock your bike it's your fault your bike gets stolen. But theft is illegal. Theft is if someone wants to take something that doesn't belong to him and then executes the taking. Locks don't change this fact. It just makes the execution of the crime more difficult.
I have a vision of an utopia where people can leave all things unlocked. If they get stolen, the thief gets identified immediately and he has to give the things back. No punishment at all or only a token punishment. This should work because sanctions are not neccessary if no harm was done. Today we punish caught thieves somewhat harshly because we need to deter people from becoming thieves. If we can stop thefts just after the fact, token punishment will suffice. If someone repeatedly tries to steal things in that utopia we could offer therapy or try to find out the underlying cause of the attempted thefts. That's utopia: everything works out perfectly for everybody (shrugs).
Today we lock our browsing experience using uBlock just because we have to. We also have to lock our bikes, because we have to. Sorry for the tangent.
To catch all bicycle thieves, everywhere, at all times, would require 24/7 worldwide surveillance of every square meter on Earth. Do you really desire this?
This is an utopia and the definition of utopia is that this is not a problem. This might be because this surveillance is benevolent. Another way could be that everybody has the tools to do this surveillance themselves in a beneficial way for everybody.
That's utopia for you (shrugs).
That's utopia for you (shrugs).
> This is an utopia and the definition of utopia is that this is not a problem.
What?
It's difficult to tell online whether a statement is facetious or not. But I can't see how this makes any sense otherwise.
What?
It's difficult to tell online whether a statement is facetious or not. But I can't see how this makes any sense otherwise.
I gave some examples why this would not be a problem.
One advantage of visions of utopias: they give ideas for a better world and also it shows what-if perspectives: what if we really could catch thieves in a beneficial way and help them? what if there is a business opportunity because there's a need to be fulfilled?
One advantage of visions of utopias: they give ideas for a better world and also it shows what-if perspectives: what if we really could catch thieves in a beneficial way and help them? what if there is a business opportunity because there's a need to be fulfilled?
I think the point isn’t that you (or Cory Doctorow) has to use ublock to prevent fraud, only that one would expect such users to block ads qua ads and accidentally benefit from the fraud protection.
I'm sure he personally does use it, but that doesn't stop him from highlighting these issues and talking about it. That's what he's been all about for years now.
The thread states that he ordered there by accident. I don't think you do that to highlight something.
Also it could have been a friend or family member finding it first. I use browser based adblockers on all my devices. My partner doesn't always. Luckily I have Pi-hole setup to at least block these links on my home network.
But uBlock doesn't absolve Google of their responsibility. Google is allowing the fake ads on their platforms, which are doing harm. Furthermore, Google is often picking and choosing who is "allowed", relative to the money, and their opaque internal filtering and policies. These "bad ads" are partially making it through, because Google is getting paid, so they can share some of the accountability for widespread fraud and damage.
I don't think Cory uses Google as his search engine either. I think he did this to make a point.
Plot twist: Cory Doctorow gets paid by the restaurant to promote them. He then made the fake website and bought the Google ads in order to concoct this outrage story to go viral.
I mean, if this is a "great Thai restaurant in my neighborhood", how likely is it he ordered there yesterday for the first time?
I mean, if this is a "great Thai restaurant in my neighborhood", how likely is it he ordered there yesterday for the first time?
Do you have perfect recall of every restaurant's website? Even if you do, surely one of them changed their site at some point.
You're probably joking, but even if you do order from a place a couple times a year it can be hard to tell which site is theirs. A local restaurant for me at one point had two different websites, each featured different indoor pictures of the location and their food. I never knew if I should use the new one or the old one, with the problem being solved when they retired and the new owners renamed the place.
You're probably joking, but even if you do order from a place a couple times a year it can be hard to tell which site is theirs. A local restaurant for me at one point had two different websites, each featured different indoor pictures of the location and their food. I never knew if I should use the new one or the old one, with the problem being solved when they retired and the new owners renamed the place.
Yes, I was joking, should have made that more obvious.
[deleted]
I dont know who Cory Doctorow is but his credibility went way down in my eyes.
The answer from Google's point of view is for the Thai restaurant to pay more for the advert so they are at the top of the rankings.
When Google stopped putting a meaningful distinction between paid results and organic results that was a line for me. It's fine to have an adverts - you have to pay the bills but when the adverts become the results it's just pay to play rentseeking by Google and the product is now untrustworthy and on a downward spiral as a result. Amazon search results have taken a similar route, you can search for something specific and get something totally unsuitable as top result now.
When Google stopped putting a meaningful distinction between paid results and organic results that was a line for me. It's fine to have an adverts - you have to pay the bills but when the adverts become the results it's just pay to play rentseeking by Google and the product is now untrustworthy and on a downward spiral as a result. Amazon search results have taken a similar route, you can search for something specific and get something totally unsuitable as top result now.
Exactly. Google results can't be trusted, because it's clear they are very manipulated, based on their cut of profits and siphoned data that's used for user targeting. It has reached the point of being suspect, significantly detrimental, and increasingly criminal. And an argument can be made that they are actively suppressing competition, so that useful alternatives are not viable.
Doug @Rushkoff says that the ethic of today's "entrepreneur" is to #GoMeta - don't provide a product or a service, simply find a way to be a predatory squatter on a chokepoint between people who do useful things and people who use those things. —https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1628948931710451712
----------
Alice:
“Is Cory talking about these predatory fake restaurants? Or Google itself?”
Beth:
“Yes?”
----------
Alice:
“Is Cory talking about these predatory fake restaurants? Or Google itself?”
Beth:
“Yes?”
yup that was my kneejerk too, literally the definition of 'middleman'
the only counter-point I have is when I used to sell demonstration boards: they cost me almost nothing to produce and I designed them in minutes, but people who bought them said I saved them R&D time in the long run (open source)
the only counter-point I have is when I used to sell demonstration boards: they cost me almost nothing to produce and I designed them in minutes, but people who bought them said I saved them R&D time in the long run (open source)
Problem with Google ads ? use an ad blocker, even the FBI recommends it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34916239
Need more convincing ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34650366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34641328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34557354
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34916239
Need more convincing ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34650366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34641328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34557354
Google search is getting worse and worse for this. I was in Argentina over the last month, I am not sure it is the norm but every time I performed a search instead of the usual 1 or 2 sponsored links there were 7 or 8, effectively pushing the real search results below the fold. The best was if I searched for google docs the top sponsored links were scam sites pretending to be google docs. The advertising business doesn’t even seem to care about protecting the rest of google, a small restaurant doesn’t stand a chance.
I'm in the USA, the first 6 listings are all ads, and it's been like that for at least 4 months. It's so bad I legit switched to Bing.
In this instance isn't Google guilty of fraud? They put on their website something that defrauds, it being called "search" makes no difference IMHO.
Isn't there in the US a small claims court for the restaurant to seek takedown and compensation for damages?
No, the person creating the fake ad is guilty of fraud. Google is guilty of not verifying it enough.
Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is. Same as Walmart isn't guilty of poisoning people when they stock a product that's spoiled in production, but merely failing to verify proper credentials set up by regulators.
I don't know why so many people here and elsewere refuse to hold people creating predatory/fradulent companies accountable , but instead demand that megacorporations control access to your products instead. Which they repeatedly fail and and exploit to enrich themselves at your expense.
Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is. Same as Walmart isn't guilty of poisoning people when they stock a product that's spoiled in production, but merely failing to verify proper credentials set up by regulators.
I don't know why so many people here and elsewere refuse to hold people creating predatory/fradulent companies accountable , but instead demand that megacorporations control access to your products instead. Which they repeatedly fail and and exploit to enrich themselves at your expense.
Google is literally getting paid to advertise fraudulent businesses or websites and / or to deliver malware.
If they can't sanitise their primary means of profit then...
Nothing, because there's no regulation after how many years?
If they can't sanitise their primary means of profit then...
Nothing, because there's no regulation after how many years?
Exactly, why isn't the regulation going after those fradulent businesses?
Why are actual criminals being unpunished while you wring your hands on how megacorporations aren't playing the police?
Why are actual criminals being unpunished while you wring your hands on how megacorporations aren't playing the police?
Aiding and abetting criminal activity is also criminal activity as far as I understand.
I also block ads like my life depends on it.
I also block ads like my life depends on it.
I couldn’t agree with you less. Enabling fraud and turning a blind eye is as bad as the fraud itself, if not worse. There’s a reason we have laws about being an “accessory to…” stuff right?
> Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is.
People certainly can point the finger, for them to share some accountability, because Apple/Google are debatably suppressing competition. If people must use their store or search engine, then become victims of fraud, they are going to question how such got through their filtering systems and why can't they have other alternatives. It's one thing, if on an open system, the user chose a shady app on some odd corner of the web and it's another if the app is put in front of their face.
People certainly can point the finger, for them to share some accountability, because Apple/Google are debatably suppressing competition. If people must use their store or search engine, then become victims of fraud, they are going to question how such got through their filtering systems and why can't they have other alternatives. It's one thing, if on an open system, the user chose a shady app on some odd corner of the web and it's another if the app is put in front of their face.
I don't follow - you say "Google is guilty of not verifying it enough", then you turn around and say it's bad that people "demand that megacorporations control access to your products". Which is it?
Both. It can be both.
Compare to food: it's like demanding that Walmart screen all the food itself to protect you and then you'd screech at Walmart and only Walmart for not making sure Keloggs cereal is healthy while letting the manufacturer off the hook with zero (I repeat, zero, none, null, NADA) consequences for fraud and damage they caused.
The way media, HNers and other people behave is creating a situation that's terrible to the extreme.
Now, do a thinking experiment: how did we ensure product quality in food/electronics/other parts that DID NOT hang on the fact that Walmart has 100% monopoly on all sales of those products and completely locks out you ability to go to any other store? How did we build a system that holds manufacturer of fradulent good accountable, not the megacorporation doing the distribution?
Compare to food: it's like demanding that Walmart screen all the food itself to protect you and then you'd screech at Walmart and only Walmart for not making sure Keloggs cereal is healthy while letting the manufacturer off the hook with zero (I repeat, zero, none, null, NADA) consequences for fraud and damage they caused.
The way media, HNers and other people behave is creating a situation that's terrible to the extreme.
Now, do a thinking experiment: how did we ensure product quality in food/electronics/other parts that DID NOT hang on the fact that Walmart has 100% monopoly on all sales of those products and completely locks out you ability to go to any other store? How did we build a system that holds manufacturer of fradulent good accountable, not the megacorporation doing the distribution?
Except Walmart has to follow certain standards to ensure the products it sells are legitimate. If they'd literally just accept products from random unmarked vans and put them up for sale, they'd be very much on the line if those products end up being unsafe.
Likewise you can't just sell stolen goods even if you don't know they're stolen. They'll be confiscated at best and you'll be charged for fencing stolen goods at worst.
Likewise you can't just sell stolen goods even if you don't know they're stolen. They'll be confiscated at best and you'll be charged for fencing stolen goods at worst.
Exactly. Where are those standards for software and content?
Remember that we punish the companies that build products against standards first, not just Walmart for stocking them. We also don't trust exclusively just Walmart to set and enforce food safety standards (because that would be problematic for competition wouldn't it)? We have independent standard bodies.
And right know we have NOTHING to beat Google (or Apple or anyone) on the head with because there's no standard or rule they've ignored when they allowed this ad to be published.
Remember that we punish the companies that build products against standards first, not just Walmart for stocking them. We also don't trust exclusively just Walmart to set and enforce food safety standards (because that would be problematic for competition wouldn't it)? We have independent standard bodies.
And right know we have NOTHING to beat Google (or Apple or anyone) on the head with because there's no standard or rule they've ignored when they allowed this ad to be published.
>> Except Walmart has to follow certain standards to ensure the products it sells are legitimate.
And so Walmart makes a solid effort to ensure they know who they are buying product from.
And so Walmart makes a solid effort to ensure they know who they are buying product from.
That's my point. Google can just take money from any random entity and let them run fraudulent ads and the worst that will happen is they have to shut down the ads and get to pocket the unspent money.
I love these analogies to retail markets, but one major difference keeps digital goods from behaving the same way: spoiled food is easy to identify by customers and changes their behavior, incentivizing the quality controls we have today.
Spoiled advertisements/news programs/blog spam are not easy to identify by _todays_ customers, and thus do not incentivize quality controls. I think the solution to todays attention problem is to meet the problem on the same battlefield; attention! If anyone has a clever idea to marry people w/o situational awareness to a flywheel that creates situational awareness lmk.
Spoiled advertisements/news programs/blog spam are not easy to identify by _todays_ customers, and thus do not incentivize quality controls. I think the solution to todays attention problem is to meet the problem on the same battlefield; attention! If anyone has a clever idea to marry people w/o situational awareness to a flywheel that creates situational awareness lmk.
It certainly sounds like a blatant case of trademark infringement. The scammers are trading under the name of the legitimate restaurant in order to defraud their customers. Sounds like the most blatant case of trademark infringement I've heard of in a long time.
"Fraud" is only really a problem when perpetrated by not-well-connected individuals. When it's done by big companies it's called business.
Some percentage of the profit from advertising frauds and scams goes towards "lobbying" and "political donations" so that they may continue to freely profit from advertising frauds scams.
It will likely be harder than you think to find them. KYC is a joke, a regulatory checkbox that must be ticked to not get in trouble with federal authorities.
You don't need to enforce KYC or a particular verification method by law. Merely making the ad platform liable for any illegal content they get paid to host/serve will make the market resolve the problem immediately.
> "KYC is a joke, a regulatory checkbox that must be ticked to not get in trouble with federal authorities."
Also a law to hoover up more personal information with zero repercussions…
Also a law to hoover up more personal information with zero repercussions…
As expected, an excellent read:
TLDR: Scammers cloned a restaurant website. Amex gave them a merchant account despite fake address and fake phone number. Google let them advertise the fake restaurant despite none of the data matching Google's knowledge box.
And I just love the quote, here in context:
"Doug @Rushkoff says that the ethic of today's "entrepreneur" is to #GoMeta - don't provide a product or a service, simply find a way to be a predatory squatter on a chokepoint between people who do useful things and people who use those things."
https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1628948931710451712
(which sadly mirrors my impression with all those #Entrepreneurs that like to tag #Hustle on everything they do, like those: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34921099 )
TLDR: Scammers cloned a restaurant website. Amex gave them a merchant account despite fake address and fake phone number. Google let them advertise the fake restaurant despite none of the data matching Google's knowledge box.
And I just love the quote, here in context:
"Doug @Rushkoff says that the ethic of today's "entrepreneur" is to #GoMeta - don't provide a product or a service, simply find a way to be a predatory squatter on a chokepoint between people who do useful things and people who use those things."
https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1628948931710451712
(which sadly mirrors my impression with all those #Entrepreneurs that like to tag #Hustle on everything they do, like those: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34921099 )
It really seems to be true. I believe Doctorow now has a book called "Chokepoint Capitalism". Is it not true that so-called "tech" companies operate as chokepoints on the web. No matter what "services" they purport to provide, usually for "free", they will never get out of the way. They are always surveilling others for profit.
[deleted]
I am pretty sure that doctorow how has a better imagination than to believe that "Holy shit do we live in the worst of all possible timelines."
We actually live in a pretty good timeline when we complain about ordering Thai food over the internet and the worst that happens is we get our food delivered with some trouble.
We actually live in a pretty good timeline when we complain about ordering Thai food over the internet and the worst that happens is we get our food delivered with some trouble.
Wait what? You don't seem to realize the Cyberpunk dystopia we are living in? Yes it is amazing that we can order online! But having a company that is a near monopoly search and decides what is 'true' benefits by an otiose 15% markup that steals from the local economy is not! These are two different things...
It is amazing that I can watch videos on youtube for free but it is not awesome that they freely present alcohol ads to alcoholics and it is near impossible to get rid of them unless you are savvy enough to block them and/or pay for youtube premium. It is not okay to have predatory get-rich-quick-schemes categorized in the ads for creators that they can opt out of. It is nice that creators have that option not to advertise something that is designed pray upon vulnerable people, but what the fuck.... if youtube categorize the ads then they should be able to say no to them wholesale and not benefit from that. There are videos get-rich-quick-schemes uploaded that you need to search for that is another ballgame, it is easier to report them and having them removed because they are not giving them money.
It is amazing that I can watch videos on youtube for free but it is not awesome that they freely present alcohol ads to alcoholics and it is near impossible to get rid of them unless you are savvy enough to block them and/or pay for youtube premium. It is not okay to have predatory get-rich-quick-schemes categorized in the ads for creators that they can opt out of. It is nice that creators have that option not to advertise something that is designed pray upon vulnerable people, but what the fuck.... if youtube categorize the ads then they should be able to say no to them wholesale and not benefit from that. There are videos get-rich-quick-schemes uploaded that you need to search for that is another ballgame, it is easier to report them and having them removed because they are not giving them money.
[deleted]
Yes there’s an element of “first world problems” to all this.
But, equally, do you enjoy your paradise when you’re dimly aware you might be living in The Matrix?
But, equally, do you enjoy your paradise when you’re dimly aware you might be living in The Matrix?
If you're OK with the timeline that's moving towards owning nothing and pretending to be happy for the photo.
There's a vast difference between the timeline we are living in and the worst possible one.
We could all not be here now, for instance. That would be the worst for me.
We could all not be here now, for instance. That would be the worst for me.
The scammer has to receive money, and they have to spend money to buy ads. This is usually not something you can do anonymously. I'm wondering why it isn't shut down already, and I wonder how much of Google's ad revenue comes from this sort of thing.
[deleted]
I've noticed that Slice ( https://slicelife.com/ ) hijacks Google Maps listings like this. They setup a fraudulent website for a local pizzeria, then suggests their website to Google Maps. Google Maps will, at least in some cases, accept that fraudulent suggestion. As a result, Slice becomes a leeching middleman in the pizza order.
I wrote a comment about it before:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347930
I wrote a comment about it before:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347930
I'm not sure if this is helpful, but Google has a trademark complaint form specifically for this kind of situation:
https://services.google.com/inquiry/aw_tmcomplaint
https://services.google.com/inquiry/aw_tmcomplaint
Hilarious!
Google opens the floodgates to the spam-dam, but here's a bucket and a ladder you can use in case you want to put some of the water back.
Google opens the floodgates to the spam-dam, but here's a bucket and a ladder you can use in case you want to put some of the water back.
> And why the actual FUCK is @GoogleAds accepting these scam artists' ads for a business that they already have a knowledge box for?! Google KNOWS what the real KIIN restaurant is, and yet they are accepting payment to put a fake KIIN listing two slots ABOVE the real one.
For the same reason a Yelp result shows up as the second item on the page: Google's never (to my knowledge) had a policy against advertising on keywords associated with another firm. It is, in fact, a common way to get out in front of a company that is riding on brand-name recognition; advertising 101.
... but Google is having a recurring problem that users can't tell ads apart from organic results anymore, and if they don't do something they're at serious risk of losing reputation on search (which is in a precarious place right now). My recommendation would be to go back to yellow-boxing ads.
(ETA: If Mr. Doctorow is meaning the emphasis to be placed on "scam artists", as in "Why can't Google tell these are scammers"... I guarantee when Google goes to that page they don't see a scam site. Masking is an old tactic. It used to be the case that Google had good countermeasures against masking, but as of late it seems like something has gone amiss with their ability to detect scams reliably, or volume has saturated their capacity, or it was always this bad and we're just in a media cycle right now... Insufficient infromation for me to be able to tell).
For the same reason a Yelp result shows up as the second item on the page: Google's never (to my knowledge) had a policy against advertising on keywords associated with another firm. It is, in fact, a common way to get out in front of a company that is riding on brand-name recognition; advertising 101.
... but Google is having a recurring problem that users can't tell ads apart from organic results anymore, and if they don't do something they're at serious risk of losing reputation on search (which is in a precarious place right now). My recommendation would be to go back to yellow-boxing ads.
(ETA: If Mr. Doctorow is meaning the emphasis to be placed on "scam artists", as in "Why can't Google tell these are scammers"... I guarantee when Google goes to that page they don't see a scam site. Masking is an old tactic. It used to be the case that Google had good countermeasures against masking, but as of late it seems like something has gone amiss with their ability to detect scams reliably, or volume has saturated their capacity, or it was always this bad and we're just in a media cycle right now... Insufficient infromation for me to be able to tell).
> Google's never (to my knowledge) had a policy against advertising on keywords associated with another firm.
I think cloning a website would probably fall under their misrepresentation policy. “We don’t allow ads or destinations that deceive users by excluding relevant product information or providing misleading information about products, services, or businesses.”
I think cloning a website would probably fall under their misrepresentation policy. “We don’t allow ads or destinations that deceive users by excluding relevant product information or providing misleading information about products, services, or businesses.”
It definitely does and that's a scam. What I mean is that there's no policy stopping KIIN from advertising on "PF Changs" as a keyword because they want people to know there are alternatives to the national chain option.
Don't people use adblockers anymore? I swear there was a time where EVERYONE used one, what happened? And why are there now people that seem to actively avoid adblockers?
This is one of the reasons why I don't want to see ANY ads. I don't care if an ad doesn't track me, I don't want to see it because it can still be harmful.
This is one of the reasons why I don't want to see ANY ads. I don't care if an ad doesn't track me, I don't want to see it because it can still be harmful.
I think "Everyone used one" is particular to a nerdy / technically-very-literate section of population. It may seem that 15-20 years ago it was different, but it is likely because 15-20 years ago, nerdy / technically-very-literate were simply a higher proportion of people who were on the internet.
If I look at my non nerdy friends over last 20 years: 1. None of them are even aware of ad blockers 2. They'll claim "ads don't bother them" / they don't need one 3. They predominantly use phones and it can be tricky to install a working ad blocker () and 4. Yes they'll fall victims to ad scams - I didn't say they weren't internally contradictory people :P
(): Yes it IS tricky to install ad blocker to a non-nerdy person. They need to learn what is it, why do you use one, how do you install one that's not a scam in itself!, how do you manage one, what are the limitations, how do I update it, which browser should I use, why doesn't my favourite porn-gambling-bingo-site work anymore, etc etc. I myself have ad blockers on my computer but have constantly failed to integrate a reliable ad blocker into my phone use cases.
If I look at my non nerdy friends over last 20 years: 1. None of them are even aware of ad blockers 2. They'll claim "ads don't bother them" / they don't need one 3. They predominantly use phones and it can be tricky to install a working ad blocker () and 4. Yes they'll fall victims to ad scams - I didn't say they weren't internally contradictory people :P
(): Yes it IS tricky to install ad blocker to a non-nerdy person. They need to learn what is it, why do you use one, how do you install one that's not a scam in itself!, how do you manage one, what are the limitations, how do I update it, which browser should I use, why doesn't my favourite porn-gambling-bingo-site work anymore, etc etc. I myself have ad blockers on my computer but have constantly failed to integrate a reliable ad blocker into my phone use cases.
No plugins allowed on the default Android browser Chrome.
Scammers also do this for searches like 'aircanada' (no spaces), including sometimes impersonating the official website while telling you to call a support number as the website is down.
I saw this exact same thing happen locally. We have a Ramen restaurant whose squatter website opened before they got their own website up and running, and its SEO is better, too.
Yeah, it's kind of a "dog bites man" story
I like this guy. I chuckled when he wrote “guaran-fucking-tee”.
Google have accepted these ads for ages, probably to try and get the actual business to pony up money for ads that are ranked higher. This happened to my partner after she wanted to book a Ryanair flight. Typed Ryanair into Chrome on her phone, clicked the first link that looked very much like Ryanair and paid for tickets.
I hope Google get enough money from these sites to make it worth it.
I hope Google get enough money from these sites to make it worth it.
I often see scam ads on YouTube as well, they (Google) should really do something about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34943047
There are way more egregious ones. I searched “fedex tracking” and the top link was a .in URL. I’m American
Recently saw something similar in the Netherlands: Top hit was a scam site for drivers-license medical tests, rest of page was government sites warning about the scam site, but the scam site is still up.
This is even worse in developing countries. I tried booking a hotel in the Albanian Riviera the other day. Good luck finding any of the hotels’ actual websites, the moneymiddlemen have got their first…
Malvertising certainly appears to be the flavour of the month for threat actors.
Must've seen a half dozen articles on fake ad sites for cloud vendors and various services in the last couple of weeks alone.
Must've seen a half dozen articles on fake ad sites for cloud vendors and various services in the last couple of weeks alone.
The problem is real but this guys response is a bit over the top. In one tweet [1] he claims Google should know which one is the real restaurant. Does he think there is a person at Google reviewing all search results? Does he not understand that it's possible for two restaurants to exist with the same name? Does he not get that there are billions of searches with billions of search permutations done every minute.
1 - And why the actual FUCK is @GoogleAds accepting these scam artists' ads for a business that they already have a knowledge box for?! Google KNOWS what the real KIIN restaurant is, and yet they are accepting payment to put a fake KIIN listing two slots ABOVE the real one.
1 - And why the actual FUCK is @GoogleAds accepting these scam artists' ads for a business that they already have a knowledge box for?! Google KNOWS what the real KIIN restaurant is, and yet they are accepting payment to put a fake KIIN listing two slots ABOVE the real one.
I get that it's a hard problem.
I don't think this is about "reviewing all search results". This is about reviewing the people who are paying you money to run ads.
In this case, there were likely plenty of signals of fraud. This advertiser was advertising to multiple domains, and each domain was relatively young. Those domains would likely also have had low organic traffic.
Here are some candidate solutions. I haven't thought these through deeply. This is spur-of-the-moment thinking. A multibillion dollar company could hopefully do better than me.
1 - Google could review new paid domains. In this case, the fraudulent site posted contact information, including the phone number for the real business! Phoning that number would have revealed the fraud immediately.
2 - Google could generally validate the identity of its advertisers. Advertising for a business? Cool, let's see some incorporation or tax paperwork.
3 - Google could impose a cost for being fraudulent. Want to run ads? Cool, we'll take a $1,000 retainer for each top-level domain you want to advertise. When you close your account, you can have it back after a 90-day waiting period. If we bounce you for fraud, we'll keep it.
I used to work in ad tech. We reviewed the people we entered into financial relationships with, because we knew their bad behaviour could affect us. Google could do similarly.
I don't think this is about "reviewing all search results". This is about reviewing the people who are paying you money to run ads.
In this case, there were likely plenty of signals of fraud. This advertiser was advertising to multiple domains, and each domain was relatively young. Those domains would likely also have had low organic traffic.
Here are some candidate solutions. I haven't thought these through deeply. This is spur-of-the-moment thinking. A multibillion dollar company could hopefully do better than me.
1 - Google could review new paid domains. In this case, the fraudulent site posted contact information, including the phone number for the real business! Phoning that number would have revealed the fraud immediately.
2 - Google could generally validate the identity of its advertisers. Advertising for a business? Cool, let's see some incorporation or tax paperwork.
3 - Google could impose a cost for being fraudulent. Want to run ads? Cool, we'll take a $1,000 retainer for each top-level domain you want to advertise. When you close your account, you can have it back after a 90-day waiting period. If we bounce you for fraud, we'll keep it.
I used to work in ad tech. We reviewed the people we entered into financial relationships with, because we knew their bad behaviour could affect us. Google could do similarly.
I don't disagree that a trillion dollar company should be able to prevent this, but to be facetious, do they want to?
To your suggestions... 1- who is going to phone that number? They have millions if not billions of advertisers. Also, don't they want new businesses (with likely newly registered domains) to come and start advertising and paying money?
2. see above but "who is going to review the paperwork" also, easy to create fraudulent documents
3. Most small restaurants probably spend $100 on ads, likely aren't going to advertise if they need to put down a bunch of cash.
To Google, this just looks like a restaurant coming to advertise. So what if it has the same name. Two Dominos pizzas in my town could both set up ads and they should accept them.
I totally get why this is bad, but I think it would be very difficult for Google to control in a way that the OP twitter user is suggesting. This isn't an old school ad business where you meet with clients. Google is a trillion dollar company because you can run ads in 1 minute of work.
To your suggestions... 1- who is going to phone that number? They have millions if not billions of advertisers. Also, don't they want new businesses (with likely newly registered domains) to come and start advertising and paying money?
2. see above but "who is going to review the paperwork" also, easy to create fraudulent documents
3. Most small restaurants probably spend $100 on ads, likely aren't going to advertise if they need to put down a bunch of cash.
To Google, this just looks like a restaurant coming to advertise. So what if it has the same name. Two Dominos pizzas in my town could both set up ads and they should accept them.
I totally get why this is bad, but I think it would be very difficult for Google to control in a way that the OP twitter user is suggesting. This isn't an old school ad business where you meet with clients. Google is a trillion dollar company because you can run ads in 1 minute of work.
Yes, this would impose costs on Google and decrease their conversion rate of new advertisers.
I agree they wouldn't want to voluntarily do it--but I was responding to the perceived impossibility of it.
Another option: deal with it by franchising--small potatoes customers would go through a middleman. The middleman would charge a markup, and be the one whose reputation or money was on the line, and so have incentives to prevent fraud.
Google does something similar for AdX relationships currently--big publishers can go direct, midsize publishers go through a third party middleman.
Again, I'm just spitballing ideas here. If Google wanted to be a better steward, I believe they could be. I'm not even saying they're obligated to do this, I'm just saying I believe they could try harder to vet advertisers.
I agree they wouldn't want to voluntarily do it--but I was responding to the perceived impossibility of it.
Another option: deal with it by franchising--small potatoes customers would go through a middleman. The middleman would charge a markup, and be the one whose reputation or money was on the line, and so have incentives to prevent fraud.
Google does something similar for AdX relationships currently--big publishers can go direct, midsize publishers go through a third party middleman.
Again, I'm just spitballing ideas here. If Google wanted to be a better steward, I believe they could be. I'm not even saying they're obligated to do this, I'm just saying I believe they could try harder to vet advertisers.
That's not a knowledge box. It's a local search result. Also, there are about fifty billion Thai restaurants in America called "Kiin". Finally, the verified owner of the Burbank restaurant posts messages on Google Maps advertising order online via a third-party site. I truly do not understand how people think Google can figure out that this third party is allowed to advertise take out for this restaurant but that site can't.
[deleted]
The problem with trademarks and marketing slogans is "kiin thai" more or less translates to "come here to eat thai" more or less. I think the problem with most of the discussion about this "event" is most of the people with strong opinions seem to think "Kiin" is some dude's last name or a dish or a city name or something.
It would be like trying to trademark and lawyer up the phrase "Food Store" or the word "Burger" in the USA.
It would be like trying to trademark and lawyer up the phrase "Food Store" or the word "Burger" in the USA.
Not really, by being a word used on a different country where they don't speak the language there is no space for confusion, it would be like trademarking "yonggan" in USA and saying that it is invalid because it means "bravery" in Chinese.
Wow, this happened with me with my local dumpling place a few days ago.
I noticed the website was weird and I found my way to the correct one.
I noticed the website was weird and I found my way to the correct one.
I’d like to know what the author or any of these commenters think the process would look like that would have actually stopped this advertiser. Some guy wants to advertise their Thai restaurant. They’ve got the domain name, the site is up, it works. What else is the ad marketplace supposed to check? It’s not like you can’t have the same name as another Thai restaurant. After all, the domain registrar gave them that name.
So what would it look like?
So what would it look like?
It would look a little bit like a company that's got a fuckton of relatively well curated data about the world and maybe combining that data with some kind of "artificial intelligence" to maybe produce something useful to society like a reduction in the number of scams it gives advertising space to.
But maybe that's just me being shortsighted and valuing benevolence over revenue.
But maybe that's just me being shortsighted and valuing benevolence over revenue.
If you think it's so easy describe how it would work in this case, where a human already familiar with the business fell for the scam anyway.
You look for it. Because you know that it might be a possibility and you own the platform upon which the banner will be placed.
The poor human just wanted some food, they didn't realise they were going to have to navigate scams when searching Google for a local, unique business name.
Maybe the human is just a rube and they deserve all the trickery served up to them.
The poor human just wanted some food, they didn't realise they were going to have to navigate scams when searching Google for a local, unique business name.
Maybe the human is just a rube and they deserve all the trickery served up to them.
[deleted]
Amex: The phone number you've provided for your business account appears to be incorrect. Please correct the number and provide some evidence that you are the same person who registered your business with the state.
Google: You've registered ads for hundreds of unrelated businesses. We've suspended your account for fraudulent automated activity, please provide evidence that you own or are acting on behalf of these entities.
Google: You've registered ads for hundreds of unrelated businesses. We've suspended your account for fraudulent automated activity, please provide evidence that you own or are acting on behalf of these entities.
If my paid ad for my restaurant is right above the organic search result, how is Google adding any value?
Hypothetically? You just recently moved your site to a new domain name (your reasons are your own) and you want to advertise the new one even though the old one is “organically” first.
You want to control the snippet in a way that’s impossible with organic search.
Among other hypothetical situations.
You want to control the snippet in a way that’s impossible with organic search.
Among other hypothetical situations.
Google could notice the paid link goes to the same page as the organic link and choose not to charge the advertiser as they are obviously not adding or creating value.
Instead, because Google chooses to charge for that first link, it creates a situation where the business owner knows they have to outbid the competition to get the link above their own.
This is great for Google’s shareholders, bad for the restaurant.
Instead, because Google chooses to charge for that first link, it creates a situation where the business owner knows they have to outbid the competition to get the link above their own.
This is great for Google’s shareholders, bad for the restaurant.
Same thing for many crypto services. Never use google search without adblock. The FBI was right
You won’t believe what the top 5 results for chatgpt are
I just did that search.
Ublock origin in firefox returned, in order. 1. openai.com, 2. openai.com blogpost, 3. ChatGPT Wikipedia, 4. ChatGPT story on digitaltrends.com, 5. ChatGPT article on ZDNet.com.
Clean firefox with no ublock, in order. 1. openai.com, 2. ChatGPT Wikipedia, 3. ChatGPT story on digitaltrends.com, 4. ChatGPT article on ZDNet.com, 5. ChatGPT article on businessinsider.com.
What am I missing?
Ublock origin in firefox returned, in order. 1. openai.com, 2. openai.com blogpost, 3. ChatGPT Wikipedia, 4. ChatGPT story on digitaltrends.com, 5. ChatGPT article on ZDNet.com.
Clean firefox with no ublock, in order. 1. openai.com, 2. ChatGPT Wikipedia, 3. ChatGPT story on digitaltrends.com, 4. ChatGPT article on ZDNet.com, 5. ChatGPT article on businessinsider.com.
What am I missing?
Oh, it's for a thing called "money".
All ads are scam.
unxdfa(3)
The most surprising thing about this is that someone as internet-savvy as Doctorow doesn't just skip over the ads but instead clicks on them. That's just asking for trouble.
Wow so the victim is guilty because they were not clever/awake/focussed enough?
How does this logic work for victims of other crimes and misdemeanours?
How does this logic work for victims of other crimes and misdemeanours?
> How does this logic work for victims of other crimes and misdemeanours?
If a security expert has "password123" as their password for all services, everyone would be surprised unless he had been previously identified as a fool.
That someone tech-savvy doesn't use an adblocker is surprising to me, too.
If a security expert has "password123" as their password for all services, everyone would be surprised unless he had been previously identified as a fool.
That someone tech-savvy doesn't use an adblocker is surprising to me, too.
Google very intentionally made ads to look like a part of the search results. The reason why we know this is intentional is because it wasn't always like that.
It's important for us tech-savvy folks to be reminded of the jungle that exists out there beyond the technological walls of safety that our hard earned knowledge has afforded us.
And that those of least means all live outside those walls.
And that those of least means all live outside those walls.
Happens to me, occasionally, and I’m as smart/cynical as they come.
It’s embarrassing, but I have managed to avoid being really ripped off. The worst one, was many years ago, when I responded to a “your domain name is available” email.
I got the domain, eventually, but I probably paid double its worth, and had to get into an e-shouting match with the scammers, who were trying to lease me the name, as opposed to sell it to me (they do this, so they can quadruple the cost, as soon as you set up some infrastructure on the name).
They gave it to me, in the end, because I made it clear that I was gonna be one hell of a PItA to keep as a “customer.”
Welcome to “being human.”
It’s embarrassing, but I have managed to avoid being really ripped off. The worst one, was many years ago, when I responded to a “your domain name is available” email.
I got the domain, eventually, but I probably paid double its worth, and had to get into an e-shouting match with the scammers, who were trying to lease me the name, as opposed to sell it to me (they do this, so they can quadruple the cost, as soon as you set up some infrastructure on the name).
They gave it to me, in the end, because I made it clear that I was gonna be one hell of a PItA to keep as a “customer.”
Welcome to “being human.”
Well, in his defence - he was really FUCKING hungry!
I think you're missing the point: a journalist with an interest in internet things and "chokepoint capitalism" comes across an everyday example of these, and writes about it, using his experience as a starting point, is not a surprising outcome at all.
Of course he's savvy, that's how he's placed to explain it to less savvy people.
Of course he could just avoid it. You or I might (with a 98% success rate maybe), and then get on with our internet-savvy day job. But doing this is his internet-savvy day job. And good that it is someone's.
Of course he's savvy, that's how he's placed to explain it to less savvy people.
Of course he could just avoid it. You or I might (with a 98% success rate maybe), and then get on with our internet-savvy day job. But doing this is his internet-savvy day job. And good that it is someone's.
The billing descriptor issue doesn’t seem like a KYC violation or Amex failure to me.
Instead of using a static descriptor “Parasitic Middleman, LLC”, they send a dynamic descriptor for each transaction to tell the user “KIINTHAILA: OK, that was my Thai order; yeah, that was me”. It’s no different than when you see an order number on your statement or other dynamic text.
I don’t approve of the business practice (and take care to avoid it with my local takeout places), but I don’t think it’s an Amex failure here.
Instead of using a static descriptor “Parasitic Middleman, LLC”, they send a dynamic descriptor for each transaction to tell the user “KIINTHAILA: OK, that was my Thai order; yeah, that was me”. It’s no different than when you see an order number on your statement or other dynamic text.
I don’t approve of the business practice (and take care to avoid it with my local takeout places), but I don’t think it’s an Amex failure here.
> just following in the shoes of DoorDash and Uber Eats
Typical error of his, going "A Bridge Too Far". He points out something interesting and important to lure you in and then hand-gestures grandly toward an industry/practice that he feels we should all question. Because, you know, brilliant genius Cory Doctorow.
Typical error of his, going "A Bridge Too Far". He points out something interesting and important to lure you in and then hand-gestures grandly toward an industry/practice that he feels we should all question. Because, you know, brilliant genius Cory Doctorow.
Uber and DoorDash did exactly the same thing as what you somehow find “interesting and important” when done by someone else, but you don’t care. Because, you know, brilliant disruption tech? Or what?
https://support.google.com/business/thread/5820393/doordash-...
https://support.google.com/business/thread/5820393/doordash-...
Except it’s an industry/practice of the big ones:
* https://www.eater.com/2020/1/29/21113416/grubhub-seamless-ki... * https://www.eater.com/2015/11/11/9714840/in-n-out-doordash-d...
* https://www.eater.com/2020/1/29/21113416/grubhub-seamless-ki... * https://www.eater.com/2015/11/11/9714840/in-n-out-doordash-d...
This is something some delivery apps have been accused of doing though.
https://www.eater.com/2020/1/29/21113416/grubhub-seamless-ki...
https://www.eater.com/2020/1/29/21113416/grubhub-seamless-ki...
I find it absolutely hilarious that you're doing the exact thing you're railing against in two sentences flat.
Also, I'll give you that he does hand-gesture grandly in this Twitter thread, but he co-wrote a whole book about it called Chokepoint Capitalism. There's a lot more detail about it there, and the logic there applies here.
Also, I'll give you that he does hand-gesture grandly in this Twitter thread, but he co-wrote a whole book about it called Chokepoint Capitalism. There's a lot more detail about it there, and the logic there applies here.
Seems to me to be perfectly legal, if not morally right.
Did I miss something?
Perhaps not being morally right is something to have outrage about.
Who cares if it's legal or illegal. We don't have these discussions to let the law be the arbiter of morality, we have these discussions to get to the bottom of what the law ought to be, or at the very least, how we as individuals are going to respond to this kind of stuff.
Personally I'm going to continue to block ads on the advice of the FBI regardless what some other people say about it, I'm going to continue to refuse to use third party delivery services, and I'm going to continue to refuse to use any third party rating or aggregator service for local businesses. And also I'm going to continue aggressively avoiding Google products and services.
Personally I'm going to continue to block ads on the advice of the FBI regardless what some other people say about it, I'm going to continue to refuse to use third party delivery services, and I'm going to continue to refuse to use any third party rating or aggregator service for local businesses. And also I'm going to continue aggressively avoiding Google products and services.
Respect!
I've just recently migrated to a daily driver android phone without any Google services sitting in the background.
Stay strong, follow the path!
I've just recently migrated to a daily driver android phone without any Google services sitting in the background.
Stay strong, follow the path!
It is not legal to represent yourself as being a business when you are not in fact a representative of that business.
How is it legal?
If you mislead a customer by assuming an identity that is not yours, how is this not identity theft? (not legal)
The fraudsters' website says "Kiin Thai eatery - Official Website".
Anyways that is for a judge to decide.
Representing yourself as something you aren't for an advantage is literally one of the legal definitions of fraud in the UK.
Specifically trademark infringement. They're trading under someone else's name. This is exactly what trademarks are supposed to prevent.
Aside from "Official website" they are offering the product from the company that sells it, not a knock off.
I could sell Armani, and buy from their site, I'd be an unofficial reseller.
The point in general (slight change of position here) is that had they not stated "official", reselling is perfectly fine. As you point out trademark infringing (representing yourself as them by saying official) is not.
I could sell Armani, and buy from their site, I'd be an unofficial reseller.
The point in general (slight change of position here) is that had they not stated "official", reselling is perfectly fine. As you point out trademark infringing (representing yourself as them by saying official) is not.
"Besides from the identity fraud, how is this illegal?"
The identity fraud is core to the product. Had they not registered a domain that made them sound official and said that they were the other company, nobody would get confused and think they're ordering from the actual company.
Armani will tear you up if you set up "armani-losangeles.com" and pretend that you're Armani, even if you don't mention "Official Website".
The identity fraud is core to the product. Had they not registered a domain that made them sound official and said that they were the other company, nobody would get confused and think they're ordering from the actual company.
Armani will tear you up if you set up "armani-losangeles.com" and pretend that you're Armani, even if you don't mention "Official Website".
> I could sell Armani, and buy from their site, I'd be an unofficial reseller.
Poor example, I'm fairly sure that the designer brands are most likely to sue parallel importers and grey marketers.
Poor example, I'm fairly sure that the designer brands are most likely to sue parallel importers and grey marketers.
> Perhaps not being morally right is something to have outrage about.
Well, evidently, it doesn't outrage you.
But my impression was the rage was more directed at Google and Amex, who were in a position to easily prevent the fraud but instead choose to benefit from it.
The one party who cannot do anything about it (except cancelling orders and calling their customers until the fraud stops) is the original restaurant.
Well, evidently, it doesn't outrage you.
But my impression was the rage was more directed at Google and Amex, who were in a position to easily prevent the fraud but instead choose to benefit from it.
The one party who cannot do anything about it (except cancelling orders and calling their customers until the fraud stops) is the original restaurant.
I'm pretty sure the scammers are engaging in trademark infringement.
A beat up van showed up, without any EMT, a sketchy stretcher without straps, and no tracks or fasteners to hold it down inside the van. We were outraged and asked them to leave immediately. They demanded money to leave, and left only when we threatened to call the police on them.
We realized our mistake and scrolled down to the actual results and called the reputed local hospital which sent a properly equipped legit ambulance. Thankfully it was a simple fracture and the lost time did not lead to dangerous complications. But this could have been fatal if the emergency was more serious.
When I returned to the US, I tried searching for ambulances, and Google conspicuously avoids showing ads and suggests calling 9-1-1.