Re:No More Deceptive Download Buttons
by Avshalom on Thursday February 04, 2016 @02:01PM
(#11036296)
>>Second, it punishes ad networks that don't spend the time to vet what types of adds are allowed. As an end-user, I'm in favor of this.
It punishes the sites using those ad networks directly, the networks themselves are indirectly punished.
Well, it punished them both. An ad network that can't display it's ads in places it could before is a form of direct punishment. Forcing sites for choosing ad networks that don't vet their ads well is an additional indirect punishment as well, as it may encourage those sites to choose a more discerning ad network.
On one hand it's unfortunate that the site is being punished, on the other hand maybe they deserve some responsibility for not being more selective. I'm not sure.
First, it's positively perceived and accepted by end users, which is good for Google and end-users.
Second, it punishes ad networks that don't spend the time to vet what types of adds are allowed. As an end-user, I'm in favor of this.
Third, it boosts ad networks that do spend time vetting ads to prevent malicious ones. Presumably Google, and other networks, that spend time and resources doing this will see a return on that effort. This is good for responsible ad networks, and as an end-user, I'm in favor of this idea to the extent that it should hopefully reduce these malicious ads overall.
It's easy to see this as a way for Google to boost their own ad network, but I think that's too cynical of a take. They aren't boosting themselves specifically, they are punishing bad-actors and boosting good actors overall.