In case you needed another example of Google Search going down the drain, Search is now serving a malicious sponsored ad pretending to be Maps
Posted by Corrupt_Power@reddit | sysadmin | View on Reddit | 139 comments
I ran into this with a client just now, and have recreated it across multiple machines and networks to be sure they were not compromised in a different way. In my testing so far, this also only appears to happen in Chrome.
First open Chrome and disable any ad blockers. Then search "google maps" on Google. The first result will likely be a sponsored ad purporting to be for Google maps. Mousing over it will even show maps.google.com in the bottom left corner. However, clicking on this link will take you to a poor mock-up of maps hosted on sites.google.com. clicking anywhere on this mockup will then redirect to a scareware page.
That Google has no safeguards to protect against this for their own products in their own ad platform seems insane to me.
MrCreedski@reddit
SearchGPT (paid) isn't perfect, but it is refreshing not having sponsored results. Usually if I'm really just trying to link to something it is either in the summary, or in the sources panel on the right. I have snips of what searching 'amazon prime' did for about a week a couple of months ago with a sponsored result in The Google. Set it up so that g or d gives me a Google search or DuckDuck search which I'm really liking now with default search set to SearchGPT.
IndianaJoenz@reddit
Every Boomer I know thinks the ad on Google is the first search result, and clicks it every time.
jfoust2@reddit
Have you ever talked to the fraud department at a bank? They'll assure you that young people fall for plenty of internet scams, too. Different ones, maybe. Job scams, refund scams, ticket scams.
quigley0@reddit
Younger GenX and Elder Millennials are the only generations that seem resilient to scams. The 1975 to 1985 generation needs its own name. "Skeptical Generation" :-)
Esption@reddit
Genz actually falls victim of scams more often than boomers. Yep.
nutbuckers@reddit
Boomers are too slow to catch onto a scam. GenZ is too fast: has the attention span of a goldfish thanks to TikTok and generally an information diet consisting of short-form content.
FailedCriticalSystem@reddit
Puppy scams. Holy shit do people fall for puppy scams.
frankentriple@reddit
That's because for 15 years google was amazing and the ads were on the side and I got used to doing something that I've done a million times before by muscle memory.
Then the bastards changed the top result to an ad. Whoever did that can burn in hell.
/get off my lawn
dillbilly@reddit
and they saw the ad clickthrough rate skyrocket and the ad buyers rejoiced
VexingRaven@reddit
The ad buyers generally don't rejoice for false clickthroughs unless they're scammers looking to intentionally mislead people. A legitimate advertiser doesn't want you to click their ad accidentally because it means they paid money for somebody who's going to click right back off their site.
sanbaba@reddit
...at least people who grew up learning to realy use computers hadpve a chance of seeing through these ploys. The average teenager has zero chance.
nutbuckers@reddit
yup, I blame the commodification of complicated technology, as well as ever-shortening attention span thanks to short-form content and being on a dopamine drip of infinite scrolling.
sanbaba@reddit
Yeah it's such an odd topic because making computers easier to use is probably a net benefit..? Or at least it inarguably would be if we lived in a better world. But the convenient side effect of computers used to be that you had to learn so much just to benefit from them. I genuinely worry when I meet e.g. hardcore gamers these days who don't know what a mod is, or how to adjust driver settings outside of a game's options menu. Weird times.
nutbuckers@reddit
Yup. I recall some research showing that younger millennials-onward pursuing things like compsci and engineering don't even have the intuition about things like tree-based filesystem or tree-structure algorithms the same way folks who had to tough it out with older devices do. This took place along with the shift away from desktop computing towards the more user-friendly mobile devices.
While as a "geriatric millennial" I still get some sense of discomfort not knowning where an Android app may have saved whatever file I worked with, and the newer generation folks experience grave discomfort when faced with the horror of figuring out how they might want to organize their files in any way other than a tag/label "soup".
sanbaba@reddit
100%
CornBredThuggin@reddit
The last place that I worked, I had younger techs clicking on those sponsored links. They didn't even see a problem with clicking on them after being told not to click on those links.
HoodRatThing@reddit
Do them a favor and install an adblocker on their devices.
I do.
IsilZha@reddit
Again and again they give every reason to never give up ad blockers.
You allow and shove malicious ads to us?And you want us to turn it off? Get your own goddamn house in order, Google. You can get fucked, in the bed in which you lay with criminals. They're staying on.
Ferretau@reddit
Obviously the Ad blockers are affecting Googles bottom line - hence the reason they are moving the goal posts to block them in the Chrome browser.
IsilZha@reddit
They should spend more effort capping off the sewer pipe raining shit on anyone around their house, rather than taking away people's umbrellas.
Ferretau@reddit
I agree - but you know money talks.
IsilZha@reddit
It would probably work out better for them if they didn't drive everyone to ad blockers.
So, the only way I'll even consider turning my ad blocker down is when their actions demonstrate they can get their house in order. Until then, their cries and demands to turn it off are nothing more than the sound of a mewling dog.
Ferretau@reddit
Agreed - being productive on an unfiltered web browser is almost impossible and dangerous.
Creshal@reddit
Why bother, as long as the criminals' payments clear.
_My_Angry_Account_@reddit
Make them financially responsible for malware spread by their platforms ads and they will stop trying to stop ad blockers.
The problem is they have no liability for causing people damages.
Ottaruga@reddit
Can confirm I was able to reproduce this.
Google continues to accept ad money from criminals and governments do nothing. The ad-supported internet model is a crime against humanity from so many angles.
brynx97@reddit
kagi.com -- https://help.kagi.com/kagi/why-kagi/why-pay-for-search.html
I have been using it for ~2 years now. They also have a lot of careful and considerate AI integrations that work very well.
markusro@reddit
Oh, interesting. Stephen Wolfram (Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha) is on the advisory board.
bgr2258@reddit
Color me intrigued
zakabog@reddit
So you're a Reddit premium member?
Ottaruga@reddit
Change isn't driven by individuals. I could burn all my money paying for every single service on the internet, but fundamentally until everyone else is also made to do that through regulation it does no good for the world nor is it sustainable for an individual. Prices won't change to reflect new non-ad supported market and businesses won't restructure their offerings around paid customers. Network effects that drive people to platforms like reddit also take a significant period to reflect changes like this.
Society and capitalism is nuanced, shocker. Drop the toxic reddit culture "gotcha's", look around at the internet today and tell me honestly this the right direction for society.
Coffee_Ops@reddit
That's not a valid use of that meme. The point of the question is the market does not support a paid internet. Free stuff inevitably wins out but free stuff costs money to host.
JC Penny learned a lesson about this. You can argue with the market that your pricing is results in a healthier, more robust market.... But the market will do what it's going to do and you will lose money.
HanSolo71@reddit
Maybe, just maybe, then the markets shouldn't be let run free. You know like regulation.
Coffee_Ops@reddit
What regulation do you propose here? Advertising is illegal?
HanSolo71@reddit
Just because you understand you need regulation doesn't mean you need to create the policy here and now. That seems like a bad faith argument.
I didn't know exactly what regulations to use but letting it be a free for all is not working.
Coffee_Ops@reddit
"we have to do something" without having something in specific in mind is usually not actually helpful.
It's true that you have to recognize a problem to begin working it. But societally, raising a cry about something generally means that something WILL be done simply to appease the constituency.
Often however, the feasible courses of action are counterproductive, and the right answer is acceptance of the problem. That's obviously not always the case, but it does mean that you shouldn't say, "something must be done" until you can at least begin to articulate an approach.
If you want a practical example of what that might look like, look at Harris's proposed grocery price caps, or Trump's proposed tariffs, which are both answers to that cry that are generally regarded as terrible approaches.
HanSolo71@reddit
Asking one person to solve it all is not realistic and again just derailing the actual conversation. The first thing we need to figure out and remind people of is "Do we or do we not need regulation" since clearly that is in question.
After we answer if we want it, then we can answer "Ok and how do we want to do this" which will requires 10's of thousands of people because each each regulation will be specific to area of the economy or type of business. Each of those areas or business require experts to go over the positives and negatives or different regulation, playing out outcomes, figuring out how to prevent companies from working around.
Requiring one person to figure it all out before speaking stops the entire process and is bad faith.
Coffee_Ops@reddit
This is entirely backwards to how good problem solving or risk management is done.
First, yes-- you need to acknowledge that there is a problem. But then you need to ask what that problem is costing-- not just in money but however you want to determine cost. I'm not suggesting you need some kind of exact number, but you do need an understanding of how big of a problem it is.
THEN you look at possible solutions, and you determine or estimate what they might cost. Very often the cost of the solutions will be higher than the cost of the problem. If there are no solutions that have a lower cost than the problem, then the answer is that you do not need a change.
If you simply start with the idea that a regulation is needed, you will get regulation. What do you do when it turns out that all possible regulation makes things worse?
You are fundamentally proposing that the problem has to do with people's ability to express themselves on the internet-- whether advertising, or providing free content, for providing content in a way that doesn't align with your wishes. All possible regulations I can come up with would be dramatically worse than whatever you think the issue is with advertising.
This is very similar to the AI issue. Everyone seems to think something must be done, and it certainly seems that our government is preparing to do something, but it seems pretty clear that whatever they do is not going to solve the problem, is going to further entrench the existing big players, and is probably going to stifle free speech-- All while ceding whatever advantages we have to international competitors who will not be bound by such restrictions.
Ottaruga@reddit
The market does not support a paid internet while an ad-supported internet is an option.
It's the government's job to recognize when something bad for society is dominating the market and reshape the market via regulations to benefit the people. JC Penny was foolish for trying to shape change alone just as I'd be foolish to pay for reddit premium.
Coffee_Ops@reddit
I'm not sure what your understanding of the history of the internet is but ad supported was not the original, primary mode of the internet. Even now there are many news sites that are payealled: and people just use other sites.
Id say that's a nobel-winning understanding of the government and economics, except people have literally won Nobel prizes for the opposite stance.
Heavy-handed, on-high government regulation does reshape markets but usually in the most warped way possible. It's like asking a perverse genie for a wish: even if you get your wish it's going to come with unfortunate side effects.
In this case I'm not sure what you're suggesting: that advertising be made illegal? Or free sites be made illegal? Or that sites have to undergo government approval?
hotfistdotcom@reddit
No, thats a facile argument. If our data is being scraped to feed ai, and before that being scraped to feed advertising and sales algos even if we're blocking ads, we've never paid with ads. We've paid with our data. "you pay with ads" is the propaganda of advertisers the same way that "global warming is up to YOU to fix!" is the propaganda of large oil companies.
hprather1@reddit
The data is only valuable because it gets people to buy things. You're saying the same thing with more words.
hotfistdotcom@reddit
No, I am not. If you are having trouble understanding what I said, try rereading it, but more slowly.
hprather1@reddit
Other guy: user -> ad -> profit You: user -> data -> ad -> profit
Same fucking thing.
hotfistdotcom@reddit
That was too fast. Try again, but much, much slower.
forceofslugyuk@reddit
Not Reddit but I did have to give into Youtube Premium. Those ads were just getting so brutal and I use it a lot.
geometry5036@reddit
It's a problem when you don't understand or even acknowledge the difference between the two. And also the use of the two mediums and the difference in demographic. I would stop using the Internet if I was like that.
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
Yeah, I wouldn't go so far as saying ad-supported models are a crime inherently. They need much more severe safeguards than they currently do, however, and ad platforms are monetarily incentivized to not have those safeguards in place.
hwoodiwiss@reddit
I moved to Bing a couple of months ago, and I have 0 regrets.
MartinsRedditAccount@reddit
The most insane thing here is that they still haven't fixed the fucking exploit where people enter an arbitrary URL under the ad. It's one thing if they link to
totallylegitgooglemapsfreedownload.tld, but it shows up asmaps.google.com!?!?!?Jean_Luc_tobediscard@reddit
Sure, but if you click on it, curse them and go back and onto the real site they've tripled their engagement.
Large_Yams@reddit
Clicking and immediately backing out will down rank them in Google's standings.
HauntingReddit88@reddit
No it won't, it's a paid ad, it will always appear at the top
Large_Yams@reddit
Being a paid ad doesn't mean google will allow it indefinitely. Ads get removed for not being compliant.
Jean_Luc_tobediscard@reddit
But Google sets the standards for that.
It's like when Facebook - as was - pivoted to video. Engagement was so low they lowered the official "They watched this" to mere seconds.
VexingRaven@reddit
What they mean is that Google's engagement has tripled. I don't know how the math checks out there, but that's what they're saying.
ImaginaryBagels@reddit
This is true for results, but does it rank ads?
5redie8@reddit
I was zooming in on that shit for 5 minutes trying to figure out which character change they snuck in there
MartinsRedditAccount@reddit
Unfortunately I don't think they snuck any characters in there, I think they are somehow able to literally just put arbitrary text there. This is to some extend intended behavior to "obscure" tracking elements of the URL, but obviously what is shown should still ultimately be the real destination.
I recall seeing multiple articles and posts about this exact same thing over the past few months/years, it seems to be an ongoing issue.
HideyoshiJP@reddit
I wonder if they're doing something like the redirects in this indusface blog post? I tested a bit and if your link redirects to a non-google site, you get a warning, but if it's a google site, even a "sites.google.com" link, it just proceeds through.
For example, http://maps.google.com/search?btnI&q=http://sites.google.com/site/vaioxlgroup/tutorials/vgx-xl-redux-project-by-sinful
Note that the above page is dead now, i just knew it was a safe page from my bookmarks.
hotfistdotcom@reddit
I literally have trouble believing they are that fucking shady. They don't require the actual URL to be presented?
This, from the company that is trying to kill adblockers? That's absolutely fucking ridiculous.
_My_Angry_Account_@reddit
Since they are killing ad blockers then they should be fiscally liable for malware spread through ads.
Cold-Cap-8541@reddit
Google interalizes the profits while externalize alll the financial/social costs to the end users who use their 'free' products. By accepting the EULA we all Indemnify software manufactures from all the harms that result for the direct consequence of Google's business model / engineering decisions.
If we want malware delivery to be greatly reduced then start with changing the laws that let software developers include EULA clauses that require the user to hold the manufacture blameless for ALL negative outcomes. Imagine if we couldn't sue food manufactures for the occasional canned food that contains not just food, but a dash of poison every 30 trips to the supermarket.
Now imagine if Google because responsible for the negative outcomes from selling malvertising. What if the Google had to be financially responsible for poisoning their customers. Their hospital/recovery costs. Unlease the Nazgûl Class Action Lawyers and Malvertising ends in 10 days, 9 days...
GrumpyPenguin@reddit
I get the sense this was deliberate, so you can have your actual published links go via whatever redirector service you’re using to track ad campaign effectiveness, but people still visually see the domain that they’ll ultimately be redirected to.
However, if it was deliberate, it seems pretty obvious how exploitable it is, so there’s really no excuse for a company as net-savvy as Google to have done this.
OP said the actual site linked to was on sites.google.com; I wonder if Google require the base domains of the presenter and actual links (both Google.com) to match?
networkn@reddit
Yet their email platform is super strict against sending from unverified sources.
LeatherDude@reddit
Shit, even GCP won't let you create an INTERNAL facing OAuth app that has the word "google" in it (and just quietly errors without telling you why, annoyingly) but this shit is allowed? They've gone so far downhill
unixuser011@reddit
I just need them to get rid of their AI 'helper'
Most useless piece of shit I've ever seen - I don't even want to know what they trained it on, but if it was Reddit shitposts, i wouldn't be surprised
pdp10@reddit
The summarizer? (Whatever is showing up with uBlock Origin with default rules.) I've actually been quite pleased with that.
unixuser011@reddit
it has it's useful moments, but for the most time for me, it's been completely useless
If they gave an option to turn it off, i wouldn't mind so much
tuxedo_jack@reddit
I'm just gonna leave a link to the &UDM14 extension, which rewrites all Google URLs to block that AI bullshit.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/udm-14/
Smooth-Zucchini4923@reddit
If you're using uBlock Origin, you can do that with the filter
Coffee_andBullwinkle@reddit
Check this out. I ended up doing this on my FF and it has made a decent bit of difference :
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/05/google-searchs-udm14-trick-lets-you-kill-ai-search-for-good/
Chaos-from-Order@reddit
Search "Google classroom" two of the top three results are ad filled google sites, and have been for months, despite multiple reports.
Key-Calligrapher-209@reddit
Similar example: the fake Authenticator app that Apple allows front and center in the App store when you search "Microsoft Authenticator." I've had to walk a few old timers through downloading that, and both times had to shout at them repeatedly not to download the fake one.
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
God I absolutely hate that one. I've gotten to the point of asking beforehand if they have an iPhone, and if they do, pulling up a picture of the app's icon on their computer for them to compare against and telling them it will very likely be the second result, not the first, before even instructing them to go to the app store.
jfoughe@reddit
I do this exact same thing
Ferretau@reddit
I use the MS Page which shows the QR code for the App - that way I know they have gone to the correct App.
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
That's a good option too, although I've had a few too many people not able to grasp how to work with QR codes to where it usually isn't my first choice.
Ferretau@reddit
I deal with a mix of people and some a re in that boat. I find if its an iPhone then their comfortable with the "take a picture of this code" and it will show the App - even the most computer illiterate I had was able to get there in the end. Easier than trying to negotiate the swamp called "App Store"
sanbaba@reddit
no you guys don't understand, sure the Walled Garden is more expensive by definition but it's SO SAFE APPLE PROTECTS US ALWAYS AND FOREVER 🤣
Art_r@reddit
I find it disturbing the amount of fake sponsored videos on YouTube pretending to be a host of things, all fake that link back to sites.google.com sites, you'd think they could apply some of their amazing AI to detect and block this shit, but if it pays, it stays.
segagamer@reddit
People here questioned me for pushing uBlock Origin (and now the Lite version) as a mandatory extension for work browsers. I stand by my decision.
changee_of_ways@reddit
Most of the actual use case for search seems to be "Microsoft and Google stopped improving search and now it's useless, try an LLM and see if somehow that will make it better"
pizzacake15@reddit
LLMs are fine and all but today's LLMs spit out crap. Copilot seems to give reference to where it got the info but i checked the reference site once and the info Copilot gave wasn't even on the page it linked.
Gemini don't even bother citing its sources so it's a "trust me bro" info.
talltatanka@reddit
So if Google Chrome is going to stop supporting uBlockOrigin, and they want you to replace it with something else, has anyone found a good alternative? Or a preferred browser that still supports adblocking like uBlock does?
uBlock still works, but this message in Extension Manager: This extension may soon no longer be supported Remove or replace it with similar extensions from the Chrome Web Store.
I am not locked in to Chrome, but Firefox or Safari are not supporting some of the uses that I need.
Suggestions are welcome. Thanks.
dillbilly@reddit
DNS level adblocking. Either run a pihole or unbound w/ a blacklist.
pizzacake15@reddit
Not a silver bullet tho. Ads served on the same domain as the content will not be blocked. Lots of advertisers have shifted to this to combat DNS-level adblocking.
pizzacake15@reddit
This is why i don't trust internet advertisements. Don't matter if it's Google Ads or some "reputable" ad-serving company. It's been historically proven to deliver malicious payloads to people.
Google's actions against adblockers sends a loud and clear message. They don't care about people's security if it's in the way of their profits.
WorkFoundMyOldAcct@reddit
I wonder if this is how my wife got scammed when she googled “Apple support phone number“
charliechango@reddit
Haven't you guys implemented this?
https://programmablesearchengine.google.com/about/
hairypussblaster@reddit
This happened with our payroll system, an employee typed the name in bing and the ad at the top of the page was a phishing link, we never would have noticed until they tried to change his direct deposit.
The even better part is that 2FA was enabled on the account, but it's conditional under lord knows what invisible settings that are unconfigurable and didn't work whatsoever.
RevLoveJoy@reddit
One more data point: as of 6:40 PM PST I cannot reproduce. Seems Google killed it.
sat0123@reddit
The other day, I forgot the name of the ACLU, and googled "liberal lawyer association". The top result was Republican National Lawyers Association. ACLU was fifth. Not an ad - uBlock and pihole take care of ads. That was an actual search result.
beast_of_production@reddit
JFC. Well they have started hiding the official maps on the results page. I've just put Maps in my bookmarks so I don't hunt around for it like an idiot
zeptillian@reddit
This is hardly the first time ads have been used to poison search results and it will not be the last.
This is why you should never click on sponsored links in search results.
If you are searching for google maps and the search results don't return a link for the real thing at the top of the results, something is very wrong.
You should scroll past the ads and click on results.
When you search, are you looking for the best results or for what someone paid to tell you are the best results?
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
Well yes, thank you. Fairly sure most people here are going to know that, and use ad blockers. The point is Google doesn't even have safeguards for their own products, which is insane.
zeptillian@reddit
They do. This is not proof of anything.
There are always new vulnerabilities and attacks coming out all the time.
Would you be surprised if an infected email reaches your Gmail account? Does that mean there is no filtering?
The fact that this infected link in an ad actually surprised you suggests that, they normally catch and block these things.
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
They let someone claim they were making an ad for maps.google.com. That's pretty blatantly easy to catch.
zeptillian@reddit
Ads are not for domains, they are for keywords. They don't sell someone the right to claim maps.google.com they sold someone the right to show ads when someone searches for the terms. Whether it's a direct competitor to google maps or a company that offers something to go along with it does not matter. It's just a question of what search terms trigger showing your ad.
It would probably be an anti trust violation if they prohibited advertisers from advertising against their products.
Imagine if they sold key words for different map providing companies so that if someone was looking for Mapquest, they would be shown a competitor like Apple maps. Now imagine they do this for every company and product on the face of the planet except the products they have. That would sure be exploiting their search engine dominance in a way that gives them an unfair advantage wouldn't it?
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
The ad was literally for "maps.google.com", if you can't see how they should be able to catch that, you're way too deep in the Google Kool-Aid.
Ferretau@reddit
When it's affecting their bottom line of course not.
Weird_Definition_785@reddit
And most important of all you should be pushing ublock to all users.
tuxedo_jack@reddit
As a mandatory extension that cannot be removed, only bypassed per-site.
Gh0st0117@reddit
I just encountered this the other day with a user in our office who searched for “Amazon”. The sponsored content legitimately looked like it linked out to the site, but when the user clicked the link it went out to some malicious site that had a bunch of popups. Luckily, the user was smart enough to not click on anything and I walked them through on how to report the sponsored content to Google. Just a super odd and concerning situation considering I’m willing to bet that 50% of our users would have done something foolish. Google really needs to step up their game because this is unacceptable.
NeuralNexus@reddit
I am like the cheapest person in the world. I pay this weird euro search upstart for a good search engine tho. You might like it.
tuxedo_jack@reddit
thecravenone@reddit
Here's your periodic reminder that adblocking is one of the best effort-to-payoff ratios in your security toolbox. Even the feds say you should use adblockers.
smoike@reddit
I'm a simple cog in the machine at a workplace who's parent company stretches to over 50,000 employees across a number of sub companies and we have ad blockers running in our proxy farm. They don't aggressively block all advertising, but they do pick up most pop up or under advisements and the more flagrant advertising attempts while leaving most inline advertising alone. Every once in a while I get a website that said "you need to turn off adblocking to continue, and I can't do anything but shrug my shoulders and give up on that site as it's a policy dictated from far above my pay grade. I mean I could go into the console and mess with making it work, but I don't care enough about it to persue that avenue.
thecravenone@reddit
I usually just adblock that warning.
quack_duck_code@reddit
Yeah, never click 'sponsored' links.
Frankly, these just need to be blocked as ads.
bgr2258@reddit
I've been seeing this for years. I trust that Google actively wants to prevent this, but the scammers find sneaky ways around it.
We pushed out a DNS filter service to our users and turned on the as 6 blocking feature. They still see these ads, but get blocked when they click on them (even the legitimate ones). I just have to occasionally train people to scroll past the ads to get to what they were actually looking for
Excited_Biologist@reddit
Consider switching to Kagi. Google sucks
l0st1nP4r4d1ce@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
tldr_MakeStuffUp@reddit
I was trying to solve an odd issue with RDP not responding as expected earlier today. Went to google, put in the error phrase in quotes, got a whopping 3 results which were all unusable.
I switched over to Bing for the first time in my life. Did a similar search with actual results, got my answer and fixed the issue in a matter of minutes.
Sad to say but Google really is dead.
sanbaba@reddit
Afaik the only solution is using a script that prunes untrustworthy search results. Welcome to "progress" 🤷♂️
USAF-3C0X1@reddit
The “enshitification” of Google started with Google Glass when the company deleted their “Don’t be evil” mantra.
sanbaba@reddit
I think most agree the clear demarcation was when they deleted Reader in attempt to drive engagement on G+ (🤮) - marking a concerted effort to destroy the old model entirely and make obfuscation into Web 2.0
IsilZha@reddit
They didn't delete the whole "Don't be evil" mantra. Just the "Don't".
JazzlikeSurround6612@reddit
The rise of Bing has begun! All hail Bing!
titlrequired@reddit
In typical Bing fashion.. several years later than expected.
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
Honestly, if they scaled back the AI crap at the top a bit and got things sorted with reddit so they could start crawling them again, they'd be solid. I've been using Bing for a while already for the rewards system they have.
JazzlikeSurround6612@reddit
Yeah, honestly, I started using Bing and even edge myself maybe a year ago. They really came a long way.
zakabog@reddit
I searched for Google maps in an incognito window with no plugins and that wasn't the case. Tried another computer, as well as Firefox. None of them has this result, can you share a screenshot?
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
Sure, here you go:
zakabog@reddit
Uhhh huh... and where did the link go...?
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
Reddit only allows one image per comment, bear with me, I'll put an album together
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
Well, they may have finally caught and removed it, as I'm not able to recreate it now. Might be able to get the URL from the client, since I didn't think about it and cleared my browser data just not trying to recreate it. The only other screenshot I took when I first found it was this, showing the hover pop-up. Both were taken originally to post in my work chat.
Ottaruga@reddit
/u/zakabog Here's screenshots with the hover url on the bottom of each. The ad still shows for me when searching in a fresh private window.
https://imgur.com/a/Pfansfk
In my first test the hover url was also a legitimate maps.google.com address identical to the url displayed on the sponsored link.
zakabog@reddit
Then I hope you reported the ad. Though it's seems like it got taken down already, there's really not much that can be done unless Google has a human manually go through every single ad, which just isn't feasible given how large they are, unless you want to start paying to access websites like Google?
narcissisadmin@reddit
Nonsense. They have the resources to determine if you're being mean in the YouTube comment section, they can fucking catch these rogue ads.
zakabog@reddit
That's trivial to do with LLMs, I've deployed speech monitoring solutions that can tell you the tone of a conversation. To determine whether or not an a linked ad is malicious you'd need to solve the halting problem, which is impossible.
Ottaruga@reddit
Quite argumentative today I see, even in reply to my purely informative comment.
Ad has been reported (likely a fair few times per the engagement on this post alone). Ad is still up as verified by other users. Reminder that with google's resources there's zero reason this should not be being caught by automated filters, and even if they weren't competent enough for that they make enough profit to hire an army of people to be vetting this.
They don't. They hire the bare minimum to pretend they're taking action in order to protect them from government intervention while still continuing to accept as much ad revenue as possible. Google has been demonstrated to be a worse search platform in recent years by actual researchers, I'm not sure why you're giving a multi-trillion dollar company the benefit of the doubt when it comes to enshittification and profit incentives.
And as I alluded to in my other comment you won't reply to, if everyone had to pay for services like google we would all get a better product for barely any cost with the added benefit of it not being incentivized to cause societal harm for profit. Read "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism", our current despicable situation was a direct choice made by people in our lifetimes in the pursuit of profit. It does not have to be this way.
Macia_@reddit
I was able to recreate just now on Edge. Goes to a site thats just a screenshot of google maps. Clicking the image then redirects to a DigitalOcean host with the scareware
Corrupt_Power@reddit (OP)
/u/zakabog was able to pull the link from the client's history, see screenshots here: https://imgur.com/a/HaqTBV2
Library_IT_guy@reddit
Happened with Amazon search results recently too.
anonymousITCoward@reddit
ublock origin on firefox, takes care of that...
RedHal@reddit
Hard agree.
i_accidentally_the_x@reddit
That is..cray cray
CupOfTeaWithOneSugar@reddit
Search: privnote The top 2x ads and some of the organic results are phishing sites. Report it and nothing wll happen
Search: Meta Ireland Phone number The phone number shown in the top results are scam call centres. Google search has been poisoned by scammers polluting forums with associated SEO content. Again, report it and nothing will happen.