Yes, the vetting part is also important. As it is now renowned newspapers are serving ads that are border fraudulent, and I don't really understand how they are putting their reputation at risk this way by letting third parties publish non-vetted content on their site.

"I don't really understand how they are putting their reputation at risk this way by letting third parties publish non-vetted content on their site."

I read it as a measure of their financial desperation. They're eating their seed corn (their reputation is their most valuable asset in that without that, what else do they have?), and, well, what other choice do they have? HN has been talking about the other choices for years, but every time I see someone try one, they sink.

I'm wondering when the Google Play Store wild west era will end. I've seen numerous apps containing ads with text (e.g. "Install Candy Crash!") laid over borderline pornographic images that have nothing to do with the advertised service. I guess it catches the eye?

I don't think shifting responsibility to publishers is the answer. A half-serious idea would be to have a neutral regulatory body issue "licenses to advertise" but how long until corporate interests took that over?