I think they substantially underplayed how much the large tech companies are doing to prevent scam ads.
The evidence I have to back up that point is the case of "google charged the advertiser more" for it being somehow lower quality. That appears to me to be a very biased interpretation of how Adsense charges to maximize ecpm. Googles algorithms know that click through rates are low so they increase the price, the algo doesn't know why the click through rates are low.
The article also spent about zero time discussing how they fight spam and only said the companies say "we remove bad ads as fast as we can."
Judges throw out cases like the woman mentioned who got scammed because the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the company acting with good faith, not because they have a vested interest in perpetuating large internet company profits.
Further, the article plays fast and loose with the distinction between "our network is enormous, we do everything we can, but can't feasibly prevent every single case of spam" and "we don't do anything about spam."
By jumping between "every single case" and "anything" the author paints a complacent picture out of behavior that is anything but.
If that article left you newly strongly supporting internet regulation, I think you got scammed by the author.
The evidence I have to back up that point is the case of "google charged the advertiser more" for it being somehow lower quality. That appears to me to be a very biased interpretation of how Adsense charges to maximize ecpm. Googles algorithms know that click through rates are low so they increase the price, the algo doesn't know why the click through rates are low.
The article also spent about zero time discussing how they fight spam and only said the companies say "we remove bad ads as fast as we can."
Judges throw out cases like the woman mentioned who got scammed because the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the company acting with good faith, not because they have a vested interest in perpetuating large internet company profits.
Further, the article plays fast and loose with the distinction between "our network is enormous, we do everything we can, but can't feasibly prevent every single case of spam" and "we don't do anything about spam."
By jumping between "every single case" and "anything" the author paints a complacent picture out of behavior that is anything but.
If that article left you newly strongly supporting internet regulation, I think you got scammed by the author.