Hacker News Reader

Comment by belorn | Hacker News Reader

Why should the advertisement networks be the sole responsible when it is the publisher that subcontract the activity of delivering ads to visitors? The responsibility for distributing malware should be shared between each party that earn revenue from the illegal activity, which include the publisher, the network and the criminal. Passively earning money on criminal activity should not be the primary method that content creator earn money.

I also find it very problematic that offline advertisement are held to a much higher standard and required to follow local laws, while web based advertisement can even get away with distributing malware without repercussions.

View on HN

Right, but why do you stop there and blame Forbes and not e.g. Google -- the company that let the attacker upload the malware?

It's very hard for a publisher -- even one as big as Forbes to hold Google accountable for anything. The fact that most people have such a fundamental lack of understanding about how digital advertising works doesn't help either.

The reality is in fact very simple. Ultimately, the buck stops with Forbes. They're the ones who decided to serve ads, they've made the decision to do it without their oversight - so they're the ones to be held responsible if the ads start spreading malware.

It's publishers, not us, who can and should exert market pressure on ad networks to change.

Ultimately the buck actually stops with the end user. They're the ones who decided to ask a server outside of their control for any and all data it has stored at an address and then used it in a way harmed themselves. It very much is us who can and should exert market pressure on ad networks to change. The publisher, ad network, ad creator, any and all business, only exists to satisfy our needs and wants. We are the market not publishers.

Oh, but we do. We install ad blockers. That's the best way to exert that pressure from our side :).

> The publisher, ad network, ad creator, any and all business, only exists to satisfy our needs and wants. We are the market not publishers.

You'd wish. We are as much a market as dogs are the market for dog food. They're not, dogs don't have money. Dog food is marketed to human owners. And so it's publishers who are customers of ad networks.

>Oh, but we do. We install ad blockers. That's the best way to exert that pressure from our side :).

That's exactly what I meant haha. I find the constant barrage of news about how terrible ads are baffling. There's a very simple solution for end users and it's been around for a long time.

>They're not, dogs don't have money.

We do have money. That's what they want from their ads, our money. Don't view ads -> don't click ads ->don't spend money on advertised products -> problem solved.

As a casual browser I can only blame the site that "served" me, good and hard. I have no idea what network or subnetwork ultimately served the malware/ad.

And since the visited site is the one that came into my "home," it's entirely appropriate to hold the site's feet to the fire.

When a site becomes well known for holding itself responsible for what comes out of the site, and doing it effectively, I'll whitelist them.

Why do you think Google was the ad network responsible? The article names several other ad networks (Atomx, Yahoo) and doesn't even mention Google.

Who said anything about passively earning money from illegal activity?

I'll clarify - by "we should hold networks responsible" I mean "we the publishers" - that doesn't absolve our responsibility to the consumer. The fact is, the overwhelming number of ads online are free from malware, to a large number of 9s-decimal places. Still, networks need to vet the ads they serve. That's something they _can_ do that publishers cannot.

The publisher has the same ability to vet the advertisement that a subcontractor delivery, that a company has to vet the construction material when subcontracting the construction of a building. If publisher were held responsible, they would only deal with advertisement network that are held economically responsible if advertisement they deliver breaks the law. That mean higher costs, less revenue, but an end to the wild west we currently have.

If I buy a paper based newspaper, the ads on those follow a very strict set of local laws. Each time an illegal ad is mistakenly printed, its news that other papers just love to write about. If I buy a online subscription, none of this laws are in place, and to the same large number of 9s-decimal places that you talk about, the illegal ads will be on the online version.

This is patently false. We have zero ability to vet ads as a publisher without spinning up an entire as sales department larger than my entire company. The networks we use can and do vet the ads before serving them.

Of course, you're right. It's actually very simple. You as a publisher need to verify ad networks. Ad networks should verify their ads. It's your responsibility as a publisher to find ones that do it properly. Because I, as an user, don't care about the byzantine world of advertising. I deal only with you, and if you serve me crap, I don't care if it's your subcontractor's fault. It's an implementation detail. I blame you, because I interface with you.

And you are absolutely right. We can't pass along responsibility and feign ignorance. It did take a while for us to do it right (whittle down the networks we use to the best and most responsible) and that did take some relationship building - but I'm sure glad we did.

  The networks we use can and do vet
  the ads before serving them.

You know this for every ad for each network... exactly how?

If they failed in this duty, would you be informed?

Do they have a duty-to-defend clause in your agreement with them such that if you are sued for serving malware in your app, the network will pay all costs for your defense and all necessary restitution?

There's a sour "we were only following orders" flavor to such an indifferent stance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com