Don't fall into the trap of "everything not mandatory is prohibited".

Google doesn't really want scam ads. It doesn't make a lot of sense to penalize them for removing some of them just because their process isn't perfect; removing them doesn't have to be banned.

But if you make not removing them mandatory, you're replacing the justice system with a private corporation, which is pretty crazy. If the police accuse you of a crime, they have to prove it to a judge and jury. You can appeal to a higher court. Google doesn't have that. And if you add liability for not removing something, they're going to err on the side of removing things they ought not to, with no recourse for the victims. Competitor wants you out of the search results? Report it to Google and you're out, because they get a billion complaints and removing them by default is safer than getting prosecuted for missing a real one.

The correct solution is to let Google remove things that are bad without punishing them for not being perfect -- maybe even err on the side of imposing (civil) liability for removing things they shouldn't instead of not removing things they should -- and rely on the criminal justice system for going after the criminals.

Ad networks apply editorial oversight with respect to their own published policies* I am not aware of any ad network policies that approach the subject of "what is true" or "what is propaganda". They also apply restrictions to what they are legally liable for which is fairly narrow today (I.e. child porn or harmful substances to minors, etc)

Forcing ad networks to be the main arbiters of what is true vs. propaganda is a huge step towards an Orwellian society.

* some policies related to the concept of truth are one dealing with scams or fraudsters. Even then, it's only the scope of "does this advertiser actually provide the service they claim to be" or not, which is way more objective than anything related to war, religion, or the middle east.

Just because something already exists doesn't mean that we want more of it.

The Banks don't determine if you are a terrorist or what not. They comply with the order when a judge gives them a lawful order to freeze accounts. I think it's okay to deputize corporations for the execution of the law in the digital world. You really, really don't want the federal government or mega corps to determine what is the "truth" vs. "propaganda". It's way too much power in society to be centralized. The decision on these nuanced issues needs to have due process and be de-centralized.

> Irrespective of whether it's a good or bad things, it already exists.

Which is how we know that it's a trash fire that should be stamped out rather than causing it to spread.

You mean US history books * ? It's not my place to decide. It's a free society.

* from my PoV, US history books taught in classrooms deny or downplay the genocide of native American people, so of which were my ancestors. But I don't want society to try and use mega corps to push my PoV.

[flagged]

If someone is putting up illegal ads, shouldn't you file suit against the advertiser?

Advertising is a commercial activity, so it should be reasonable to follow the money and find the advertiser. If necessary, add more requirements for advertisers to be identified/indetifiable so that suits can be served.

Can you give examples of laws that put editorial standards on publishers? I am not familiar with any (I mostly know US stuff). A quick search only returned: - Disclosure of Advertorial Content: U.S. law requires that if paid content is presented as editorial matter in a periodical, it must be clearly marked as an "advertisement". - Prohibiting Harmful Content: Laws prohibit publishing content that is obscene, libelous, or scandalous. - Copyright and Intellectual Property: Laws govern the exclusive rights of authors to their literary and artistic works, including the right to print, publish, and distribute them. - Privacy Laws: Publishers must comply with laws protecting personal data and privacy. - Online Platforms and Section 230: While not directly about publisher standards, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally protects interactive computer services from liability for user-generated content, distinguishing them from publishers in this context.

I can't sue a publisher for running an ad that was libel. I sue the advertiser who created the libel.

Actually we don’t put any responsibilities on news publications beforehand. They can be sued after the fact for libel/slander.