Surely the companies that advertise via Google to try and deceive you to into clicking their download button or whatever fit the bill? And surely Google, by actively enabling them, is also part of the process. As stated elsewhere on this thread, if they can detect deceptive sites, they can detect deceptive adverts.
So they implement detection, and remove these ads. The scummy advertisers then permutate their ads until they get past the detection and the game continues.
We're getting pretty good at image classification, but I don't think that extends to maliciously crafted inputs.
That or they manually verify each ad submission. If that violates their business model of high-volume low-value automated processes (and it obviously does) then you have to take account of that when decide how you view company. Automation and the inability to verify at the scale that they operate doesn't somehow absolve them.
Yeah, basically Google is looking for any way to avoid actually reviewing the ads they broadcast. Probably because advertising becomes drastically less profitable for them if they do. I feel when this sort of conflict of interest is occurring, where it's profitable for Google to continue shipping malware to users, they should be held legally accountable for their failure to police what they distribute.
