Meta Never Met a Kid Data Set It Did Not Find Useful
January 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Adults are ripe targets for data exploitation in modern capitalism. While adults fight for their online privacy, most have rolled over and accepted the inevitable consumer Big Brother. When big tech companies go after monetizing kids, however, that’s when adults fight back like rabid bears. Engadget writes about how Meta is fighting against the federal government about kids’ data: “Meta Sues FTC To Block New Restrictions On Monetizing Kids’ Data.”
Meta is taking the FTC to court to prevent them from reopening a 2020 $5 billion landmark privacy case and to allow the company to monetize kids’ data on its apps. Meta is suing the FTC, because a federal judge ruled that the FTC can expand with new, more stringent rules about how Meta is allowed to conduct business.
Meta claims the FTC is out for a power grab and is acting unconstitutionally, while the FTC reports the claimants consistently violates the 2020 settlement and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. FTC wants its new rules to limit Meta’s facial recognition usage and initiate a moratorium on new products and services until a third party audits them for privacy compliance.
Meta is not a huge fan of the US Federal Trade Commission:
“The FTC has been a consistent thorn in Meta’s side, as the agency tried to stop the company’s acquisition of VR software developer Within on the grounds that the deal would deter "future innovation and competitive rivalry." The agency dropped this bid after a series of legal setbacks. It also opened up an investigation into the company’s VR arm, accusing Meta of anti-competitive behavior."
The FTC is doing what government agencies are supposed to do: protect its citizens from greedy and harmful practices like those from big business. The FTC can enforce laws and force big businesses to pay fines, put leaders in jail, or even shut them down. But regulators have been decades ramping up to take meaningful action. The result? The thrashing over kiddie data.
Whitney Grace, January 5, 2024
Does Amazon Do Questionable Stuff? Sponsored Listings? Hmmm.
January 4, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Amazon, eBay, other selling platforms allow vendors to buy sponsored ads or listings. Sponsored ads or listings promote products and services to the top of search results. It’s similar to how Google sells ads. Unfortunately Google’s search results are polluted with more sponsored ads than organic results. Sponsored ads might not be a wise investment. Pluralistic explains that sponsored ads are really a huge waste of money: “Sponsored Listings Are A Ripoff For Sellers.”
Amazon relies on a payola sponsored ad system, where sellers bid to be the top-ranked in listings even if their products don’t apply to a search query. Payola systems are illegal but Amazon makes $31 billion annually from its system. The problem is that the $31 billion is taken from Amazon sellers who pay it in fees for the privilege to sell on the platform. Sellers then recoup that money from consumers and prices are raised across all the markets. Amazon controls pricing on the Internet.
Another huge part of a seller’s budget is for Amazon advertising. If sellers don’t buy ads in searches that correspond to their products, they’re kicked off the first page. The Amazon payola system only benefits the company and sellers who pay into the payola. Three business-school researchers Vibhanshu Abhishek, Jiaqi Shi and Mingyu Joo studied the harmful effects of payolas:
“After doing a lot of impressive quantitative work, the authors conclude that for good sellers, showing up as a sponsored listing makes buyers trust their products less than if they floated to the top of the results "organically." This means that buying an ad makes your product less attractive than not buying an ad. The exception is sellers who have bad products – products that wouldn’t rise to the top of the results on their own merits. The study finds that if you buy your mediocre product’s way to the top of the results, buyers trust it more than they would if they found it buried deep on page eleventy-million, to which its poor reviews, quality or price would normally banish it. But of course, if you’re one of those good sellers, you can’t simply opt not to buy an ad, even though seeing it with the little "AD" marker in the thumbnail makes your product less attractive to shoppers. If you don’t pay the danegeld, your product will be pushed down by the inferior products whose sellers are only too happy to pay ransom.”
It’s getting harder to compete and make a living on online selling platforms. It would be great if Amazon sided with the indy sellers and quit the payola system. That will never happen.
Whitney Grace, January 4, 2024
Big Tech, Big Fakes, Bigger Money: What Will AI Kill?
December 7, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I don’t read The Hollywood Reporter. I did one job for a Hollywood big wheel. That was enough for me. I don’t drink. I don’t take drugs unless prescribed by my comic book addicted medical doctor in rural Kentucky. I don’t dress up and wear skin bronzers in the hope that my mobile will buzz. I don’t stay out late. I don’t fancy doing things which make my ethical compass buzz more angrily than my mobile phone. Therefore, The Hollywood Reporter does not speak to me.
One of my research team sent me a link to “The Rise of AI-Powered Stars: Big Money and Risks.” I scanned the write up and then I went through it again. By golly, The Hollywood Reporter hit on an “AI will kill us” angle not getting as much publicity as Sam AI-Man’s minimal substance interview.
Can a techno feudalist generate new content using what looks like “stars” or “well known” people? Probably. A payoff has to be within sight. Otherwise, move on to the next next big thing. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough cartoon.
Please, read the original and complete article in The Hollywood Reporter. Here’s the passage which rang the insight bell for me:
tech firms are using the power of celebrities to introduce the underlying technology to the masses. “There’s a huge possible business there and I think that’s what YouTube and the music companies see, for better or for worse
Let’s think about these statements.
First, the idea of consumerizing AI for the masses is interesting. However, I interpret the insight as having several force vectors:
- Become the plumbing for the next wave of user generated content (USG)
- Get paid by users AND impose an advertising tax on the USG
- Obtain real-time data about the efficacy of specific smart generation features so that resources can be directed to maintain a “moat” from would-be attackers.
Second, by signing deals with people who to me are essentially unknown, the techno giants are digging some trenches and putting somewhat crude asparagus obstacles where the competitors are like to drive their AI machines. The benefits include:
- First hand experience with the stars’ ego system responds
- The data regarding cost of signing up a star, payouts, and selling ads against the content
- Determining what push back exists [a] among fans and [b] the historical middlemen who have just been put on notice that they can find their future elsewhere.
Finally, the idea of the upside and the downside for particular entities and companies is interesting. There will be winners and losers. Right now, Hollywood is a loser. TikTok is a winner. The companies identified in The Hollywood Reporter want to be winners — big winners.
I may have to start paying more attention to this publication and its stories. Good stuff. What will AI kill? The cost of some human “talent”?
Stephen E Arnold, December 7, 2023
Google and X: Shall We Again Love These Bad Dogs?
November 30, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Two stories popped out of my blah newsfeed this morning (Thursday, November 30, 2023). I want to highlight each and offer a handful of observations. Why? I am a dinobaby, and I remember the adults who influenced me telling me to behave, use common sense, and follow the rules of “good” behavior. Dull? Yes. A license to cut corners and do crazy stuff? No.
The first story, if it is indeed accurate, is startling. “Google Caught Placing Big-Brand Ads on Hardcore Porn Sites, Report Says” includes a number of statements about the Google which make me uncomfortable. For instance:
advertisers who feel there’s no way to truly know if Google is meeting their brand safety standards are demanding more transparency from Google. Ideally, moving forward, they’d like access to data confirming where exactly their search ads have been displayed.
Where are big brand ads allegedly appearing? How about “undesirable sites.” What comes to mind for me is adult content. There are some quite sporty ads on certain sites that would make a Methodist Sunday school teacher blush.
These two big dogs are having a heck of a time ruining the living room sofa. Neither dog knows that the family will not be happy. These are dogs, not the mental heirs of Immanuel Kant. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. The stuffing looks like soap bubbles, but you are “good enough,” the benchmark for excellence today.
But the shocking factoid is that Google does not provide a way for advertisers to know where their ads have been displayed. Also, there is a possibility that Google shared ad revenue with entities which may be hostile to the interests of the US. Let’s hope that the assertions reported in the article are inaccurate. But if the display of big brand ads on sites with content which could conceivably erode brand value, what exactly is Google’s system doing? I will return to this question in the observations section of this essay.
The second article is equally shocking to me.
“Elon Musk Tells Advertisers: ‘Go F*** Yourself’” reports that the EV and rocket man with a big hole digging machine allegedly said about advertisers who purchase promotions on X.com (Twitter?):
Don’t advertise,” … “If somebody is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Go f*** yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is.” … ” If advertisers don’t return, Musk said, “what this advertising boycott is gonna do is it’s gonna kill the company.”
The cited story concludes with this statement:
The full interview was meandering and at times devolved into stream of consciousness responses; Musk spoke for triple the time most other interviewees did. But the questions around Musk’s own actions, and the resulting advertiser exodus — the things that could materially impact X — seemed to garner the most nonchalant answers. He doesn’t seem to care.
Two stories. Two large and successful companies. What can a person like myself conclude, recognizing that there is a possibility that both stories may have some gaps and flaws:
- There is a disdain for old-fashioned “values” related to acceptable business practices
- The thread of pornography and foul language runs through the reports. The notion of well-crafted statements and behaviors is not part of the Google and X game plan in my view
- The indifference of the senior managers at both companies seeps through the descriptions of how Google and X operate strikes me as intentional.
Now why?
I think that both companies are pushing the edge of business behavior. Google obviously is distributing ad inventory anywhere it can to try and create a market for more ads. Instead of telling advertisers where their ads are displayed or giving an advertiser control over where ads should appear, Google just displays the ads. The staggering irrelevance of the ads I see when I view a YouTube video is evidence that Google knows zero about me despite my being logged in and using some Google services. I don’t need feminine undergarments, concealed weapons products, or bogus health products.
With X.com the dismissive attitude of the firm’s senior management reeks of disdain. Why would someone advertise on a system which promotes behaviors that are detrimental to one’s mental set up?
The two companies are different, but in a way they are similar in their approach to users, customers, and advertisers. Something has gone off the rails in my opinion at both companies. It is generally a good idea to avoid riding trains which are known to run on bad tracks, ignore safety signals, and demonstrate remarkably questionable behavior.
What if the write ups are incorrect? Wow, both companies are paragons. What if both write ups are dead accurate? Wow, wow, the big dogs are tearing up the living room sofa. More than “bad dog” is needed to repair the furniture for living.
Stephen E Arnold, November 30, 2023
Who Benefits from Advertising Tracking Technology? Teens, Bad Actors, You?
November 23, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Don’t get me wrong. I absolutely love advertising. When I click to Sling’s or Tubi’s free TV, a YouTube video about an innovation in physics, or visit the UK’s Daily Mail — I see just a little bit of content. The rest, it seems to this dinobaby, to be advertising. For some reason, YouTube this morning (November 17, 2023) is showing me ads for a video game or undergarments for a female-oriented person before I can watch an update on the solemnity of Judge Engoran’s courtroom.
However, there are some people who are not “into” advertising. I want to point out that these individuals are in the minority; otherwise, people flooded with advertising would not disconnect or navigate to a somewhat less mercantile souk. Yes, a few exist; for example, government Web sites. (I acknowledge that some governments’ Web sites are advertising, but there’s not much I can do about that fusion of pitches and objective information about the location of a nation’s embassy.)
But to the matter at hand. I read a PDF titled “Europe’s Hidden Security Crisis.” The document is a position paper, a white paper, or a special report. The terminology varies depending on the entities involved in the assembly of the information. The group apparently nudging the intrepid authors to reveal the “hidden security crisis” could be the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. I know zero about the group, and I know even less about the authors, Dr. Johnny Ryan and Wolfie Christl. Dr. Ryan has written for the newspaper which looks like a magazine, and Mr. Christl is a principal of Cracked Labs.
So what’s the “hidden security crisis”? There is a special operation underway in Ukraine. The open source information crowd is documenting assorted facts and developments on X.com. We have the public Telegram channels outputting a wealth of information about the special operation and the other unhappy circumstances in Europe. We have the Europol reports about cyber crime, takedowns, and multi-nation operations. I receive in my newsfeed pointers to “real” news about a wide range of illegal activities. In short, what’s hidden?
An evil Web bug is capturing information about a computer user. She is not afraid. She is unaware… apparently. Thanks Microsoft Bing. Ooops. Strike that. Thanks, Copilot. Good Grinch. Did you accidentally replicate a beloved character or just think it up?
The report focuses on what I have identified as my first love — commercial messaging aka advertising.
The “hidden”, I think, refers to data collected when people navigate to a Web site and click, drag a cursor, or hover on a particular region. Those data along with date, time, browser used, and similar information are knitted together into a tidy bundle. These data can be used to have other commercial messages follow a person to another Web site, trigger an email urging the surfer to buy more or just buy something, or populate one of the cross tabulation companies’ databases.
The write up uses the lingo RTB or real time bidding to describe the data collection. The report states:
Our investigation highlights a widespread trade in data about sensitive European personnel and leaders that exposes them to blackmail, hacking and compromise, and undermines the security of their organizations and institutions. These data flow from Real-Time Bidding (RTB), an advertising technology that is active on almost all websites and apps. RTB involves the broadcasting of sensitive data about people using those websites and apps to large numbers of other entities, without security measures to protect the data. This occurs billions of times a day. Our examination of tens of thousands of pages of RTB data reveals that EU military personnel and political decision makers are targeted using RTB.
In the US, the sale of data gathered via advertising cookies, beacons, and related technologies is a business with nearly 1,000 vendors offering data. I am not sure about the “hidden” idea, however. If the term applies to an average Web user, most of those folks do not know about changing defaults. That is not a hidden function; that is an indication of the knowledge the user has about a specific software.
If you are interested in the report, navigate to this link. You may find the “security crisis” interesting. If not, keep in mind that one can eliminate such tracking with fairly straightforward preventative measures. For me, I love advertising. I know the beacons and bugs want to do the right thing: Capture and profile me to the nth degree. Advertising! It is wonderful and its data exhaust informative and useful.
Stephen E Arnold, November 23, 2023
Mr. Musk Knows Best When It Comes to Online Ads
November 9, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Other than the eye-catching and underwhelming name change, X (formerly Twitter) has remained quiet. Users still aren’t paying for the check mark that verifies their identity and Elon Musk hasn’t garnered any ire. Mashable has the most exciting news about X and it relates to ads: “X Rolls Out New Ad Format That Can’t Be Reported, Blocked.”
X might be a social media platform but it is also a business that needs to make a profit. X has failed to attract new advertisers but the social platform is experimenting with a new type of ad. X users report act the new ads don’t allow them to like tweet them. What is even stranger is that the ads do not disclose that they are advertisements or any other disclosure.
The ads consist of a photo, a fake avatar, and vague yet interesting text. They are disguised as a regular tweet. The new ads are of the “chumbox” quality, meaning they are low quality, spammy aka those clickbait ads at the bottom of articles on content farm Web sites. They’re similar to the ads in the back of magazines or comic books that advertised for drawing schools, mail order gadget scams, and sea monkeys.
Chumbox ads point to X’s failing profitability. Advertisers lost interest in X after Musk acquired the platform. X is partnering with third-party advertisers in the ad tech industry to sell available ad inventory. Google also announced a partnership with X to sell programmatic advertising.
Musk made another change that isn’t sitting well with users:
“The new ad format arrives to X around the same time the company made another decision that makes the platform less transparent. Earlier this week, under a directive from Musk himself, X removed headlines and other context from links shared to the platform. Instead of seeing the title of an article or other link posted to X, users now simply see an embed of the header image with the corresponding domain name displayed like a watermark-like overlay in the corner of the photo. Musk said he made the change to how links were displayed because he didn’t like the way it previously looked.”
X as an advertising platform is doing a bang up job. Lots of advertisers. Lots of money. Lots of opportunity. I, however, am not sure I see X as does Mr. M.
Whitney Grace, November 9, 2023
How Generative Graphics AI Might Be Used to Embed Hidden Messages
November 3, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Subliminal advertising is back, now with an AI boost. At least that is the conclusion of one Tweeter (X-er?) who posted a few examples of the allegedly frightful possibilities. The Creative Bloq considers, “Should We Be Scared of Hidden Messages in AI Optical Illusions?” Writer Joseph Foley tells us:
“Some of the AI optical illusions we’ve seen recently have been slightly mesmerizing, but some people are concerned that they could also be dangerous. ‘Many talk about the dangers of “AGI” taking over humans. But you should worry more about humans using AI to control other humans,’ Cocktail Peanut wrote in a post on Twitter, providing the example of the McDonald’s logo embedded in an anime-style AI-generated illustration. The first example wasn’t very subtle. But Peanut followed up with less obvious optical illusions, all made using a Stable Diffusion-powered Hugging Face space called Diffusion Illusion HQ created by Angry PenguinPNG. The workflow for making the illusions, using Monster Labs QR Control Net, was apparently discovered by accident. The ControlNet technique allows users to specify inputs, for example specific images or words, to gain more control over AI image generations. Monster Labs’ tool was created to allow QR codes to be used as input so the AI would generate usable but artistic QR codes as an output, but users discovered that it could also be used to hide patterns or words in AI-generated scenes.”
Hidden messages in ads have been around since 1957, though they are officially banned as “deceptive advertising” in the US. The concern here is that AI will make the technique much, much cheaper and easier. Interesting but not really surprising. Should we be concerned? Foley thinks not. He notes the few studies on subliminal advertising suggest it is not very effective. Will companies, and even some governments, try it anyway? Probably.
Cynthia Murrell, November 3, 2023
Publishers and Remora: Choose the Right Host and Stop Complaining, Please
October 20, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software involved.
Today, let’s reflect on the suckerfish or remora. The fish attaches itself to a shark and feeds on scraps of the host’s meals or nibbles on the other parasites living on their food truck. Why think about a fish with a sucking disk on its head?
Navigate to “Silicon Valley Ditches News, Shaking an Unstable Industry.” The article reports as “real” news:
Many news companies have struggled to survive after the tech companies threw the industry’s business model into upheaval more than a decade ago. One lifeline was the traffic — and, by extension, advertising — that came from sites like Facebook and Twitter. Now that traffic is disappearing.
Translation: No traffic, no clicks. No clicks and no traffic mean reduced revenue. Why? The days of printed newspapers and magazines are over. Forget the costs of printing and distributing. Think about people visiting a Web site. No traffic means that advertisers will go where the readers are. Want news? Fire up a mobile phone and graze on the information available. Sure, some sites want money, but most people find free services. I like France24.com, but there are options galore.
Wikipedia provides a snap of a remora attached to a scuba diver. Smart remora hook on to a fish with presence.
The shift in content behavior has left traditional publishing companies with a challenge: Generating revenue. Newspapers specialized news services have tried a number tactics over the years. The problem is that the number of people who will pay for content is large, but finding those people and getting them to spit out a credit card is expensive. At the same time, the cost of generating “real” news is expensive as well.
In 1992, James B. Twitchell published Carnival Culture: The Trashing of Taste in America. The book offered insight into how America has embraced showmanship information. Dr. Twitchell’s book appeared 30 years ago. Today Google, Meta, and TikTok (among other digital first outfits) amplify the lowest common denominator of information. “Real” publishing aimed higher.
The reluctant adjustment by “white shoe” publishing outfits was to accept traffic and advertising revenue from users who relied on portable surveillance devices. Now the traffic generators have realized that “attention magnet” information is where the action is. Plus smart software operated by do-it-yourself experts provides a flow of information which the digital services can monetize. A digital “mom” will block the most egregious outputs. The goal is good enough.
The optimization of content shaping now emerging from high-technology giants is further marginalizing the “real” publishers.
Almost 45 years ago, the president of a company with a high revenue online business database asked me, “Do you think we could pull our service off the timesharing vendors and survive?” The idea was that a product popular on an intermediary service could be equally popular as a standalone commercial digital product.
I said, “No way.”
The reasons were obvious to me because my team had analyzed this question over the hill and around the barn several times. The intermediary aggregated information. Aggregated information acts like a magnet. A single online information resource does not have the same magnetic pull. Therefore, the cost to build traffic would exceed the financial capabilities of the standalone product. That’s why commercial database products were rolled up by large outfits like Reed Elsevier and a handful of other companies.
Maybe the fix for the plight of the New York Times and other “real” publishers anchored in print is to merge and fast. However, further consolidation of newspapers and book publishers takes time. As the New York Times “our hair is on fire” article points out:
Privately, a number of publishers have discussed what a post-Google traffic future may look like, and how to better prepare if Google’s A.I. products become more popular and further bury links to news publications… “Direct connections to your readership are obviously important,” Ms. LaFrance [Adrienne LaFrance, the executive editor of The Atlantic] said. “We as humans and readers should not be going only to three all-powerful, attention-consuming mega platforms to make us curious and informed.” She added: “In a way, this decline of the social web — it’s extraordinarily liberating.”
Yep, liberating. “Real” journalists can do TikToks and YouTube videos. A tiny percentage will become big stars and make big money until they don’t. The senior managers of “shaky” “real” publishing companies will innovate. Unfortunately start ups spawned by “real” publishing companies face the same daunting odds of any start up: A brutal attrition rate.
Net net: What will take the place of the old school approach to newspapers, magazines, and books. My suggestion is to examine smart software and the popular content on YouTube. One example is the MeidasTouch “network” on YouTube. Professional publishers take note. Newspaper and magazine publishers may also want to look at what Ben Meiselas and cohorts have achieved. Want a less intellectual approach to information dominance, ask a teenager about TikTok.
Yep, liberating because some of those in publishing will have to adapt because when X.com or another high technology alleged monopoly changes direction, the sucker fish has to go along for the ride or face a somewhat inhospitable environment, hunger, and probably a hungry predator from a bottom feeding investment group.
Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2023
The Google: Dribs and Drabs of Information Suggest a Frisky Outfit
October 10, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-2.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I have been catching up since I returned from a law enforcement conference. One of the items in my “read” file concerned Google’s alleged demonstrations of the firm’s cleverness. Clever is often valued more than intelligence in some organization in my experience. I picked up on an item describing the system and method for tweaking a Google query to enhance the results with some special content.
“ How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet” appeared on October 2, 2023. By October 6, 2023, the article was disappeared. I want to point out for you open source intelligence professionals, the original article remains online.
Two serious and bright knowledge workers look confused when asked about alleged cleverness. One says, “I don’t understand. We are here to help you.” Thanks, Microsoft Bing. Highly original art and diverse too.
Nope. I won’t reveal where or provide a link to it. I read it and formulated three notions in my dinobaby brain:
- The author is making darned certain that he/she/it will not be hired by the Google.
- The system and method described in the write up is little more than a variation on themes which thread through a number of Google patent documents. I demonstrated in my monograph Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator that clever methods work for profiling users and building comprehensive data sets about products.
- The idea of editorial curation is alive, just not particularly effective at the “begging for dollars” outfit doing business as Wired Magazine.
Those are my opinions, and I urge you to formulate your own.
I noted several interesting comments on Hacker News about this publish and disappear event. Let me highlight several. You can find the posts at this link, but keep in mind, these also can vaporize without warning. Isn’t being a sysadmin fun?
- judge2020: “It’s obvious that they design for you to click ads, but it was fairly rocky suggesting that the backend reaches out to the ad system. This wouldn’t just destroy results, but also run afoul of FCC Ad disclosure requirements….”
- techdragon: “I notice it seems like Google had gotten more and more willing to assume unrelated words/concepts are sufficiently interchangeable that it can happily return both in a search query for either … and I’ll be honest here… single behavior is the number one reason I’m on the edge of leaving google search forever…”
- TourcanLoucan: “Increasingly the Internet is not for us, it is certainly not by us, it is simply where you go when you are bored, the only remaining third place that people reliably have access to, and in true free market fashion, it is wall-to-wall exploitation.”
I want to point out that online services operate like droplets of mercury. They merge and one has a giant blob of potentially lethal mercury. Is Google a blob of mercury? The disappearing content is interesting as are the comments about the incident. But some kids play with mercury; others use it in industrial processes; and some consume it (willingly or unwillingly) like sailors of yore with a certain disease. They did not know. You know or could know.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2023
YouTube and Click Fraud: A Warning Light Flashing?
September 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I spotted a link to a 16 minute YouTube long form, old-fashioned video from Lon.TV titled YouTube Invalid Traffic. The person who does Lon.TV usually reviews gadgets, but this video identifies a demonetization procedure apparently used by the non-monopoly Google. (Of course, I believe Google’s assertion that almost everyone uses Google because it is just better.)
The creator reads an explanation of an administrative action and says, “What does this mean?” Would a non-monopoly provide a non explanation? Probably a non not. Thanks, MidJourney, the quality continues to slip. Great work.
Lon.TV explains that the channel received a notice of fraudulent clicks. The “fix”, which YouTube seems to implement unilaterally and without warning, decreases a YouTuber’s income. The normal Google “help” process results in words which do not explain the details of the Google-identified problem.
Click fraud has been a tricky issue for ad-supported Google for many years. About a decade ago, a conference organizer wanted me to do a talk about click fraud, a topic I did not address in my three Google monographs. The reports for a commercial company footing the bill for my research did get information about click fraud. My attorney at the time (may he rest in peace) advised me to omit that information from the monographs published by a now defunct publisher in the UK. I am no legal eagle, but I do listen to them, particularly when it costs me several hundred dollars an hour.
Click fraud is pretty simple. One can have a human click on a link.l If one is serious, one can enlist a bunch of humans using an ad in Craigslist.com. A more enterprising click fraud player would write a script and blast through a target’s ad budget, rack up lots of popularity points, or make a so-so video into the hottest sauce pan on the camp fire.
Lon.TV’s point is that most of his site’s traffic originates from Google searches. A person looking for a camera review runs a query on Google. The Google results point to a Lon.TV video. The person clicks on the Google generated link, and the video plays. The non-monopoly explains, as I understand it, that the fraudulent clicks are the fault of the YouTuber. So, the bad actor is the gadget guy at Lon.TV.
I think there is some useful information or signals in this video. I shall share my observations:
- Click fraud, based on my research a decade ago, was indeed a problem for the non-monopoly. In fact, the estimable company was trying to figure out how to identify fraudulent clicks and block them. The work was not a path to glory, so turnover often plagued those charged with stamping out click fraud. Plus, the problem was “hard.” Simple fixes like identifying lots of clicks in a short time were easily circumvented. More sophisticated ones like figuring out blocks of IP addresses responsible for lots of time spaced clicks were okay until the fraudsters figured out another approach. Thus, cat-and-mouse games began.
- The entire point of YouTube.com is to attract traffic. Therefore, it is important to recognize what is a valid new trend like videos of females wearing transparent clothing is recognized and clicks on dull stuff like streaming videos of a view of an erupting volcano are less magnetic. With more clicks, many algorithmic beavers jump in the river. More clicks means more ads pushed. The more ads pushed means more clicks on those ads and, hence, more money. It does not take much thought to figure out that a tension exists between lots of clicks Googlers and block those clicks Googlers. In short, progress is slow and money generation wins.
- TikTok has caused Google to undermine its long form videos to deal with the threat of the China-linked competitor. The result has been an erosion of clicks because one cannot inject as many ads into short videos as big boy videos. Oh, oh. Revenue gradient decline. Bad. Quick fix. Legitimize keeping more ad revenue? Would a non monopoly do that?
- The signals emitted by Lon.TV indicate that Google’s policy identified by the gadget guy is to blame the creator. Like many of Google’s psycho-cognitive methods used to shift blame, the hapless creator is punished for the alleged false clicks. The tactic works well because what’s the creator supposed to do? Explain the problem in a video which is not pushed?
Net net: Click fraud is a perfect cover to demonetized certain videos. What happens to the ad money? Does Google return it to the advertiser? Does Google keep it? Does Google credit the money back to the advertiser’s account and add a modest “handling fee”? I don’t know, and I am pretty sure the Lon.TV fellow does not either. Furthermore, I am not sure Google “knows” what its different units are doing about click fraud. What’s a non-monopoly supposed to do? I think the answer is, “Make money.” More of these methods are likely to surface in the future.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
