> I'm not sure what we can do about this.

I think the easiest thing to do would be to pass a law or regulation requiring companies to be responsible for the ads shown on their sites. If, say, the NYTimes is promoting scams (they are) they should be fined or worse.

Its crazy to me that people even use their browsers without ad blocking. I wanted to limit my screen time a while back and realized that it was the browser that was the problem, so I ditched my heavily content filtered ad blocking brave and pivoted to safari with no ad blocking, my screen time went from 2 hrs / day to 20 minutes / day.

It’s all true but at the same time I don’t see any such ads on the TV. Maybe we already have laws and institutions that solve this exact problem and we need to apply them to social/ad networks?

Introducing the term "chum bucket" to my father, who fished and had a visceral appreciation for the analogy, instilled in him the understanding and self-control to not click the chum bucket. Kudos to whoever came up with the term.

I don't think it will be so easy this time around. We probably need to shift liability to the parties able to do something about it (advertising platforms).

+1

And there's another drawback to this flood of bad/scammy ads on YT: people aren't naive and ad effectiveness is plummeting like never before.

This has forced YT to display more ads and introduce mandatory viewing times for two consecutive ads.

I've definitely noticed an increase in beautifully creative but still obvious scams lately. But it seems like just a bit of an escalation from what was already a tire fire. Old school Google searches, for example, routinely serve up scam sites masquerading as legitimate e-commerce. Sometimes ones that were recognized as scams more than a year ago. WTF

Google must be held accountable. It's shocking they get off Scot free advertising scams

A few minutes ago I just got a third (from a first and second emails that were sent half an hour earlier than that) about a "Business Partnership Invitation" for "AI Training Projects" from "Anthony Harrison" <anthonyharrisonai1989@gmail.com>. No need to say what you're supposed to do in that "business" but later in said email they claim they will get 70% of the earnings and you get 30%.

The funny part is that they most probably got my mail from the "Who wants to be hired?" post from here and most probably they're using some sort of ai tool to scan those emails, even those that are "hidden" by a 'please see my portfolio to get my mail' like mine.

It's been the same story for the last few months - I post on HN's "Who wants to be hired?" and a few days later I get no real job offers but scam slop like that.

I keep getting a weird video telling me to never begin a conversation with a stranger by giving them my name, as if corporate environments are full of fae.

You’d think if we convicted Elizabeth Holmes for defrauding investors, many AI grifters are doing far worse? What am I missing

In the future, the real flex amongst the rich will be to have humans working for you to isolate you from all the slop. They will filtrate, curate, fact check and sumarize manually every single bit of information before it reaches their rich bosses. All of this in pristine victorian calligraphy with a fountain pen over premium paper.

We will can them scribes.

"I don't pay to get rid of ads, so I get bottom-of-the-barrel scam products hoisted at me. This is AI's fault, somehow, and not how the web has worked since nearly its inception."

But we also have AI that helps people not fall for phishing attacks.