How I advertise malicious software on Google Ads

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s automated ad systems are accused of arbitrarily flagging legitimate software as “malicious” while simultaneously letting obvious scam and malvertising campaigns run at scale. Commenters describe a broader pattern across Google products and other big platforms: opaque enforcement, no meaningful human support, and perverse incentives that favor paying advertisers and cost-cutting over user safety or accuracy. Many see this as a symptom of monopoly power and regulatory failure, pushing smaller developers and businesses into dependent relationships with large gatekeepers they cannot effectively challenge.

Google Ads & Arbitrary Suspensions

  • Many see Google Ads as opaque and brittle: accounts are suspended with generic “malicious / policy violation” labels and no actionable explanation.
  • Several advertisers report long‑running, compliant accounts being killed over trivial or unclear issues (e.g., hyperlinking to another domain), with no effective appeal.
  • One commenter notes their own Google Ads suspension was only fixed after getting pulled into a sales funnel and spending significant money; another says the OP’s issue was resolved only after HN attention, without explanation.
  • Some suggest legal action (e.g., checking for Chrome malware flags and suing for defamation), but this is mostly rhetorical.

Customer Support Black Holes in Large Platforms

  • Recurrent theme: major companies (Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, airlines, banks, cell carriers) block or neuter customer support, leaving users in automated loops.
  • People describe Kafkaesque appeal flows: needing to log into closed accounts, repeated canned responses, or ID uploads that lead nowhere.
  • Some resort to regulators, courts, or chargebacks, but note this is time‑ and energy‑intensive, which companies rely on to deter complaints.

Ad Quality, Scam Ads, and Incentives

  • Multiple users report YouTube and web ads that are overwhelmingly scammy (fake products, financial fraud, sketchy games, passport/PreCheck intermediaries).
  • Attempts to report scam ads are often rejected; posters argue Google has little incentive to remove revenue‑generating scams.
  • One analysis: high‑value, profile‑rich users see mainstream brands; low‑data or ad‑blocker users see the “bottom of the barrel” scammers because big advertisers don’t bid on them.
  • Others counter that actual criminal ads should never be shown, regardless of revenue.

Google Maps and Data Contribution Frustrations

  • Long thread of people trying to add or correct places (chargers, restaurants, addresses) and seeing near‑universal rejection, silent failures, or business owners getting repeatedly “verified” then blocked.
  • Many conclude: stop doing free data work for Google; some switch to contributing to OpenStreetMap instead.
  • There’s debate over why Maps behaves this way: abuse mitigation at scale vs. lack of incentive vs. mismanaged moderation.

Security Heuristics, Domain Reputation & the Product

  • The advertised terminal multiplexer site is reportedly blocked by some institutional/UK filters as “newly registered” or suspicious.
  • Some speculate the name “race-term” or the domain age triggered automated systems; others point out “new domain == malware” is a common heuristic but often over‑weighted.
  • Interest exists in Linux support and the non‑grid layout approach; others question why a niche technical tool relies on Google Ads at all.

Regulation, Liability, and Power

  • Several see this as regulatory failure: there’s little downside for Google to be opaque or host scam ads.
  • EU Digital Services Act is mentioned as a framework for appeal and explanation, but enforcement is questioned.
  • Many argue making platforms legally liable for ad content or requiring reachable human contacts would quickly change behavior, but would also constrain scale.