Going Meta
February 24, 2023 7:42 AM Subscribe
Cory Doctorow on people who defend fraudsters online, beginning with a side trip to Google's sponsored ads and how malign actors take advantage of them.
"Advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of consumers."
Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page (the creators and founders of Google), "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine," Computer Networks, vol. 30 (1998), pp. 107-117.
At the end, Cory writes: "Everything we do is mediated by gigantic, surveillant monopolists that spy on us comprehensively from asshole to appetite – but none of them, not a 20th century payment giant nor a 21st century search giant – can bestir itself to use that data to keep us safe from scams."
"Advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of consumers."
Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page (the creators and founders of Google), "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine," Computer Networks, vol. 30 (1998), pp. 107-117.
At the end, Cory writes: "Everything we do is mediated by gigantic, surveillant monopolists that spy on us comprehensively from asshole to appetite – but none of them, not a 20th century payment giant nor a 21st century search giant – can bestir itself to use that data to keep us safe from scams."
posted by box at 7:53 AM on February 24, 2023 [7 favorites]
It's especially grim since it's been an open secret for at least a decade that online advertising is almost entirely worthless. Even the nominally legitimate purpose of all this surveillance and manipulation is itself a scam.
But the kayfabe must be maintained to keep the money moving.
posted by Reyturner at 7:57 AM on February 24, 2023 [13 favorites]
But the kayfabe must be maintained to keep the money moving.
posted by Reyturner at 7:57 AM on February 24, 2023 [13 favorites]
It's weird acknowledging that for me, since I and a couple others are trying to set up an ad network for Metafilter and maybe other sites. I resolve the difference by noting that I don't see it as selling ads to Big Money No Whammies, but to people who have websites they want to tell the world about in a more direct fashion. MeFi prohibits self-links, but if you have a site and some cash, we could maybe put an image or some text in the corner to let people know about it, maybe? Well that how I see it.
posted by JHarris at 10:08 AM on February 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by JHarris at 10:08 AM on February 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
I personally am flatly against any and all advertising, and I've done everything in my power to avoid as much of it as possible since I was a teenager.
for more of my thoughts on this subject please visit my "Don't Ad Me" blog at www....
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:27 AM on February 24, 2023 [8 favorites]
for more of my thoughts on this subject please visit my "Don't Ad Me" blog at www....
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:27 AM on February 24, 2023 [8 favorites]
Let's do a quick ctrl-f on 'liability' and...yep, zero hits.
Which pretty much sums up the underlying problem with the article - Doctrow says we should demand that companies take action against these fraudsters, while ignoring that the reason they don't is because we've said they don't have to care. And from my position, this is the genesis of the apologetics - actually admitting that "doing something" would require demanding accountability and that’s something we've attacked culturally - in a lot of ways we've turned liability into a dirty word - but arguing that fraud is okay is a position that doesn't make you friends, and so the source of the problem is the victim falling for the scam. This is a well known part of the cycle of abuse, after all.
Now, the part that made me smirk was his complaint that Wix could do something about the fraudsters using their services to set up scams, to which my response to him is twofold. One, he really should not be surprised, as he has spent a good portion of his career arguing that Wix should not have to care about fraudsters using their service. And two, being the collateral damage of "free speech" turns out to really suck, huh.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:28 AM on February 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
Which pretty much sums up the underlying problem with the article - Doctrow says we should demand that companies take action against these fraudsters, while ignoring that the reason they don't is because we've said they don't have to care. And from my position, this is the genesis of the apologetics - actually admitting that "doing something" would require demanding accountability and that’s something we've attacked culturally - in a lot of ways we've turned liability into a dirty word - but arguing that fraud is okay is a position that doesn't make you friends, and so the source of the problem is the victim falling for the scam. This is a well known part of the cycle of abuse, after all.
Now, the part that made me smirk was his complaint that Wix could do something about the fraudsters using their services to set up scams, to which my response to him is twofold. One, he really should not be surprised, as he has spent a good portion of his career arguing that Wix should not have to care about fraudsters using their service. And two, being the collateral damage of "free speech" turns out to really suck, huh.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:28 AM on February 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
if you have a site and some cash, we could maybe put an image or some text in the corner to let people know about it
I used to offer this on my blog back when blogs were the Big Thing and it got decent traffic numbers. No-go. Everyone who was interested in advertising wanted all that backend tracing and monitoring stuff, CPM and whatnot. I just wanted to post your little JPG and a link for $X/month.
posted by Servo5678 at 11:09 AM on February 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
I used to offer this on my blog back when blogs were the Big Thing and it got decent traffic numbers. No-go. Everyone who was interested in advertising wanted all that backend tracing and monitoring stuff, CPM and whatnot. I just wanted to post your little JPG and a link for $X/month.
posted by Servo5678 at 11:09 AM on February 24, 2023 [5 favorites]
What's the impetus behind the defenses? "Sure, the Internet is now a worse place to be, but money is being generated - money that I could have?"
posted by Selena777 at 11:28 AM on February 24, 2023
posted by Selena777 at 11:28 AM on February 24, 2023
Servo5678, my idea is to cater specifically to people still in the blogosphere, especially MeFi members. You could just donate, or you could get something for your donation, maybe a little extra traffic. Social media stole away a lot of users because of its huge numbers, but many of those numbers were never into blogs in the first place. I think the number of people who would be interested in reading blogs, if they knew how to find them, is at least the same; all those surplus people on social media were never internet users before, and if Facebook were gone, probably would just stop reading websites.
Maybe I can afford to feel that way because I never had a really popular blog of my own, the best I ever did was writing for someone else's blog, heh. But because of that, at least, my expectations are low!
posted by JHarris at 11:37 AM on February 24, 2023 [2 favorites]
Maybe I can afford to feel that way because I never had a really popular blog of my own, the best I ever did was writing for someone else's blog, heh. But because of that, at least, my expectations are low!
posted by JHarris at 11:37 AM on February 24, 2023 [2 favorites]
I used to offer this on my blog back when blogs were the Big Thing and it got decent traffic numbers.
Daring Fireball manages to make it work somehow.
posted by Lanark at 12:12 PM on February 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
Daring Fireball manages to make it work somehow.
posted by Lanark at 12:12 PM on February 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
the reason they don't is because we've said they don't have to care.
Who exactly is “we”, here?
posted by Jon_Evil at 12:29 PM on February 24, 2023
Who exactly is “we”, here?
posted by Jon_Evil at 12:29 PM on February 24, 2023
What's the impetus behind the defenses? "Sure, the Internet is now a worse place to be, but money is being generated - money that I could have?"
From where I'm sitting, there are two. One, which Doctrow points out, is based on them trying to "prove" they wouldn't be taken in out of fear that they would. The other, which I feel Doctrow himself winds up in here, is summed up as "I don't like where this logical train of thought is heading."
There's a reason why my response to his piece was to do a search on liability - the reality is that corporations are, to steal from Carlos Cipolla's social types, bandits - that is that they seek out their own self-interest at the expense of the interests of others. As such, there is no appealing to their "better angels" - this is what we're seeing here with all of these providers, as combating fraud would cost them time and resources with not only no payoff but even more revenue reduction as the fraudsters are no longer doing business and paying them. So they don't, because it's not in their own self-interest beyond some degree of reputational aspect (and even that's been blunted due to societal leanings.)
As such, the answer is not to ask and beg companies to do right, but to align their self-interest with others, and the tool we most often use for doing so with corporations is liability - because it turns out that being on the hook for damages can significantly change that self-interest calculus. (For example, it's been suggested that if credit card companies were forced to eat fraudulent transactions, they would get much stricter about fraud.) This is why my sympathy for Doctrow is decidedly limited here - he's spent a good portion of his career arguing that companies like Wix should not have to legally care that fraudsters use their services, then wonders why there's so much fraud on Wix.
Who exactly is “we”, here?
Society, because we've said with our laws that Wix is not obliged to be concerned with fraud on their platform.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:41 PM on February 24, 2023 [4 favorites]
From where I'm sitting, there are two. One, which Doctrow points out, is based on them trying to "prove" they wouldn't be taken in out of fear that they would. The other, which I feel Doctrow himself winds up in here, is summed up as "I don't like where this logical train of thought is heading."
There's a reason why my response to his piece was to do a search on liability - the reality is that corporations are, to steal from Carlos Cipolla's social types, bandits - that is that they seek out their own self-interest at the expense of the interests of others. As such, there is no appealing to their "better angels" - this is what we're seeing here with all of these providers, as combating fraud would cost them time and resources with not only no payoff but even more revenue reduction as the fraudsters are no longer doing business and paying them. So they don't, because it's not in their own self-interest beyond some degree of reputational aspect (and even that's been blunted due to societal leanings.)
As such, the answer is not to ask and beg companies to do right, but to align their self-interest with others, and the tool we most often use for doing so with corporations is liability - because it turns out that being on the hook for damages can significantly change that self-interest calculus. (For example, it's been suggested that if credit card companies were forced to eat fraudulent transactions, they would get much stricter about fraud.) This is why my sympathy for Doctrow is decidedly limited here - he's spent a good portion of his career arguing that companies like Wix should not have to legally care that fraudsters use their services, then wonders why there's so much fraud on Wix.
Who exactly is “we”, here?
Society, because we've said with our laws that Wix is not obliged to be concerned with fraud on their platform.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:41 PM on February 24, 2023 [4 favorites]
...jobs at the US Post Office...
He's not exaggerating with that one. Couple years ago, I was looking for Post Office jobs. The top several Google hits are completely bogus. How do I know? I clicked them, and clicked through probably three pages before I realized it was a scam site that claims to help people get jobs at the Post Office. It was really polished and professional looking. I thought it was some friendly on-boarding from the US Post Office itself until my BS meter went off.
I lost nothing. But I'm privileged, college educated, computer-savvy and English is my first language. I've helped design and build websites, and I've worked doing advertising for giant brands and companies—and even I got taken three pages in or so. I bet thousands get tricked by those sites. And it's for the damn post office! It's not a misspelling of a local restaurant. I don't remember the details as it was a while ago, but it was some sign-up fee of $100 or something. Was not affiliated with the post office at all. And there it is: at the very top of Google results.
posted by SoberHighland at 3:42 PM on February 24, 2023 [8 favorites]
He's not exaggerating with that one. Couple years ago, I was looking for Post Office jobs. The top several Google hits are completely bogus. How do I know? I clicked them, and clicked through probably three pages before I realized it was a scam site that claims to help people get jobs at the Post Office. It was really polished and professional looking. I thought it was some friendly on-boarding from the US Post Office itself until my BS meter went off.
I lost nothing. But I'm privileged, college educated, computer-savvy and English is my first language. I've helped design and build websites, and I've worked doing advertising for giant brands and companies—and even I got taken three pages in or so. I bet thousands get tricked by those sites. And it's for the damn post office! It's not a misspelling of a local restaurant. I don't remember the details as it was a while ago, but it was some sign-up fee of $100 or something. Was not affiliated with the post office at all. And there it is: at the very top of Google results.
posted by SoberHighland at 3:42 PM on February 24, 2023 [8 favorites]
Was not affiliated with the post office at all. And there it is: at the very top of Google results.
You know, we once made Google pay $.5B for openly helping illegal online pharmacies advertise. I don't think that stuck.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:18 PM on February 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
You know, we once made Google pay $.5B for openly helping illegal online pharmacies advertise. I don't think that stuck.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:18 PM on February 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
I wonder if there is any research linking overall trust in society up the prevalence of scams. It might be a bit too far to say that fraud and scammers are the major force eroding our social fabric, but they certainly don't help. Particularly when so much of the fraud is pretending to be official entities (like the post office!). Not to mention the extent to which grift is basically the whole point of republicans now. Wanna buy some gold?
posted by ropeladder at 7:50 PM on February 24, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by ropeladder at 7:50 PM on February 24, 2023 [3 favorites]
You know, we once made Google pay $.5B for openly helping illegal online pharmacies advertise. I don't think that stuck.
That was google failing to enforce a geographical drug price fixing cartel's wishes. So an interesting example where the full power of the state is deployed to ensure Americans get the worst deal possible.
posted by srboisvert at 5:02 AM on February 25, 2023 [2 favorites]
That was google failing to enforce a geographical drug price fixing cartel's wishes. So an interesting example where the full power of the state is deployed to ensure Americans get the worst deal possible.
posted by srboisvert at 5:02 AM on February 25, 2023 [2 favorites]
Everyone who was interested in advertising wanted all that backend tracing and monitoring stuff, CPM and whatnot.
The funny part is turns out those numbers have mostly turned out to be fraud and the advertisers don't really seem to care. It's a lie to the customers and lie to me industry.
posted by srboisvert at 5:20 AM on February 25, 2023 [4 favorites]
The funny part is turns out those numbers have mostly turned out to be fraud and the advertisers don't really seem to care. It's a lie to the customers and lie to me industry.
posted by srboisvert at 5:20 AM on February 25, 2023 [4 favorites]
Doctorow: I think it's fear: in their hearts, people – especially techies – know that they, too, are vulnerable to these ripoffs, but they don't want to admit it. They want to convince themselves that the person who got scammed made an easily avoidable mistake, and that they themselves will never make a similar mistake.
And who can tell the difference between a bullshit project vs a bullshit project with a long runway of venture capital to get people into the grift? Or just a longer road to enshittification?
I know, I know. We've all been there, unable to spot the chump in the deal, and we get suckered and fall into holding tech in 401k Investments. It's okay, I'm here to cool off the mark.
posted by k3ninho at 1:27 PM on February 25, 2023 [1 favorite]
And who can tell the difference between a bullshit project vs a bullshit project with a long runway of venture capital to get people into the grift? Or just a longer road to enshittification?
I know, I know. We've all been there, unable to spot the chump in the deal, and we get suckered and fall into holding tech in 401k Investments. It's okay, I'm here to cool off the mark.
posted by k3ninho at 1:27 PM on February 25, 2023 [1 favorite]
> Selena777: "What's the impetus behind the defenses?"
So, I haven't seen these specific defenses myself but I have a larger theory which may overlap with some portion of this phenomenon. Basically, my theory is that for some people laissez-faire, free market capitalism is becoming (or has become) a kind of totalizing ideology where everything that is profitable is worthwhile and the only things that are worthwhile are profitable. Thus, if these scams are profitable (which they evidently are), then for those who hold this kind of ideology, these scams must be supported and upheld. In this framework, it is less about the defenders' beliefs about their proximity to these scams (either as scammer or victim) but rather about their beliefs about what constitutes legitimate economic activity. And in this framework, the legitimate and natural state of capitalism is a pure dog-eat-dog war of all against all and anything that opposes or seeks to mitigate that (e.g.: laws and regulations) is illegitimate.
I should probably eventually head over to Hacker News and see if I can find some of these apologetics to see there's any posters there who can provide evidence to support my theory.
posted by mhum at 9:08 PM on February 25, 2023 [2 favorites]
So, I haven't seen these specific defenses myself but I have a larger theory which may overlap with some portion of this phenomenon. Basically, my theory is that for some people laissez-faire, free market capitalism is becoming (or has become) a kind of totalizing ideology where everything that is profitable is worthwhile and the only things that are worthwhile are profitable. Thus, if these scams are profitable (which they evidently are), then for those who hold this kind of ideology, these scams must be supported and upheld. In this framework, it is less about the defenders' beliefs about their proximity to these scams (either as scammer or victim) but rather about their beliefs about what constitutes legitimate economic activity. And in this framework, the legitimate and natural state of capitalism is a pure dog-eat-dog war of all against all and anything that opposes or seeks to mitigate that (e.g.: laws and regulations) is illegitimate.
I should probably eventually head over to Hacker News and see if I can find some of these apologetics to see there's any posters there who can provide evidence to support my theory.
posted by mhum at 9:08 PM on February 25, 2023 [2 favorites]
Many years ago I had a job working for a company that provided credit card fraud and chargeback prevention to businesses. It quickly became apparent that most of our clients were scumbags and fraudsters themselves, such as the owner of changemyaddress dot com which was charging people $50 to fill out a form you can fill out at USPS.com for free. I’ve never felt more gross about my work than when I was with that unnamed company.
posted by SansPoint at 1:44 PM on February 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 1:44 PM on February 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
« Older a look back at one of Capcom's most misunderstood... | Nice social media account, shame if something were... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments