If google cannot even make a bot to detect fake views and subscriptions, then why the hell do advertisers give them money at all if only those bots watch the ads anyway?
And why would they think that a ban bot - which has far reaching consequences - is ok, if they cannot even prevent view gaming?
It's not trivial to game subscribers and views. Such gaming is a problem, and they are pretty surely not really close to perfect detection rates, but they aren't that bad either. And everytime I dare use a public VPN google/YT puts big fat captchas in front of me.
>Google gets something like two million takedown notices every day.
Not impressed. Not every "content claim" leads to a takedown, or account strike. And not every content claim is the same. If they cannot distinguish between one coming from e.g. Sony vs one coming from e.g. <random script kiddy> then what the hell are they doing? There is such a thing as reputation.
> If google cannot even make a bot to detect fake views and subscriptions, then why the hell do advertisers give them money at all if only those bots watch the ads anyway?
Because the ad slots are sold at auction. If 20% of the views are bots then the price should go down and advertisers get 20% more ad views (and the same number of real ones) for the same dollar. Assuming the advertisers are rational and informed; if not then the explanation for why they do it is that they're irrational or uninformed.
> And why would they think that a ban bot - which has far reaching consequences - is ok, if they cannot even prevent view gaming?
One thing doesn't appear to have anything to do with the other.
They have a ban bot because people keep trying to sue them or threaten them with adverse legislation if they don't take stuff down fast enough.
> And everytime I dare use a public VPN google/YT puts big fat captchas in front of me
Because you're doing the opposite of what scammers do. You're using the one IP address with a terrible reputation. They use a million IP addresses with good reputations, e.g. from a botnet full of machines that were innocent users last month.
> If they cannot distinguish between one coming from e.g. Sony vs one coming from e.g. <random script kiddy> then what the hell are they doing? There is such a thing as reputation.
You would think so, except that a ton of the erroneous takedowns come from the biggest senders, because they use garbage automated methods to send them.
Meanwhile if they give privileged access to major companies then everybody else would be complaining that they're discriminating against small content creators by not honoring their takedowns like they do for Sony.
If google cannot even make a bot to detect fake views and subscriptions, then why the hell do advertisers give them money at all if only those bots watch the ads anyway?
And why would they think that a ban bot - which has far reaching consequences - is ok, if they cannot even prevent view gaming?
It's not trivial to game subscribers and views. Such gaming is a problem, and they are pretty surely not really close to perfect detection rates, but they aren't that bad either. And everytime I dare use a public VPN google/YT puts big fat captchas in front of me.
>Google gets something like two million takedown notices every day.
Not impressed. Not every "content claim" leads to a takedown, or account strike. And not every content claim is the same. If they cannot distinguish between one coming from e.g. Sony vs one coming from e.g. <random script kiddy> then what the hell are they doing? There is such a thing as reputation.