YouTube doesn't want to take down scam ads

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Users report a surge of blatantly fraudulent YouTube ads, including deepfake celebrity endorsements, fake corporate and government schemes, and medical or financial scams, that are routinely flagged but left online with YouTube claiming they don’t violate policy. Many argue that because Google profits directly and can precisely target vulnerable users, the company is effectively complicit and should face legal liability similar to traditional broadcasters. Others see this as further justification for ad blockers and for stricter regulation of online ad networks, noting the long‑term risk to user trust, legitimate advertisers, and the broader online ecosystem.

Prevalence and Nature of Scam Ads

  • Many users report frequent, obvious scams on YouTube: fake investment schemes, crypto and “AI trading bots,” deepfakes of public figures, fake giveaways, miracle medical products, fake energy devices, counterfeit apps/games, and government money “grant” sites.
  • Scams often impersonate local companies, banks, utilities, politicians, or celebrities, sometimes using cloned news sites or TV branding.
  • Similar patterns are reported on Google Ads, Maps, Shopping, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, and radio/TV.

Reporting and YouTube’s Response

  • Multiple commenters say they reported clearly fraudulent ads and received automated replies that the ads do not violate policy, or that they violate policy but won’t be removed.
  • Some note rare cases where reported scam livestreams are removed quickly, but many see identical scams reappear with new accounts/domains.
  • There is debate whether this is mainly incompetence/under-resourcing and flawed ML classifiers, or a conscious business choice.

Liability, Regulation, and Legal Analogies

  • Many argue ad networks should be legally liable for fraud they distribute, analogizing to TV/radio regulations.
  • Others highlight that online platforms actively target likely victims with ad tech, making them more like co‑conspirators than neutral carriers.
  • EU Digital Services Act and similar frameworks are mentioned as potential levers; US regulators (FTC, FBI) are seen as reactive or ineffective.
  • Some suggest victims should sue platforms; feasibility and legal theories are unclear.

Economic Incentives and Brand Impact

  • Posters see a strong incentive not to block paying scammers, especially when legitimate advertisers are scarce or pay less.
  • Counterpoint: scammy, low‑quality ads erode trust in all ads, hurt major brands, and may ultimately damage YouTube’s long‑term revenue and reputation.
  • Discussion ties this to “growth at all costs,” high interest rates, and pressure on trillion‑dollar companies to squeeze existing revenue streams.

Adblocking, Premium, and “Protection Racket” Framing

  • Many use adblockers or YouTube Premium to avoid scams; some describe Premium as effectively paying protection money to escape harmful ads.
  • Others see Premium as a legitimate subscription model but concede it doesn’t stop in‑video sponsorships.
  • The cat‑and‑mouse war against adblockers is criticized as especially harmful to less technical or elderly users who are prime scam targets.

Comparisons and Broader Concerns

  • Traditional media historically had stricter ad vetting; many feel “digital” has avoided comparable regulation.
  • Twitter/X’s Community Notes on ads are cited as a partial, user‑driven mitigation, though scam ads remain common.
  • There is concern about deepfakes, targeting of the elderly/low‑literacy users, and the normalization of the idea that online ads are usually scams.