Comment by panarky
19 hours ago
You moved the goalposts to make your arguments.
You say landlords should only have accountability for the crimes of their tenants if they chose to do nothing to prevent their property from being used for crime.
Google doesn't just ignore bad advertisers, they prevent the vast majority of malicious ads and report the worst offenders to law enforcement. Google is already doing far more than what you say immunizes landlords.
You say telcos are in the clear because they give info to law enforcement on demand.
Google also does this, so according to your goalposts, Google is also in the clear.
You say Meta is in the clear because they have been sued for crimes their platform enabled.
Google has also been sued and paid billions in damages.
The standard I'm asking you to generalize is the one I replied to: "hold Google directly accountable for every malicious ad they allow through their network".
If this standard can't generalize to landlords, telcos, Meta and everyone else who has a platform that bad actors abuse, then it's a bogus standard.
I will concede that I missed the "every" in the GP comment - and you're right, that by itself is probably an unreasonable standard. I do think there is more that Google could do to address what most of us would call "known" bad actors, in the same way that telcos could do more to drop bogus spoofers. It's great that Google is doing something, but it's also knowingly leaving channels open that are for illegitimate operators.