I advertise malicious software on Google Ads
436 points
• 5 days ago
• Article
Link
RACE 的开发者（一个用 Rust 编写的 native macOS 终端复用器）最近在通过 Google Ads 推广软件时遇到了一道令人沮丧的障碍。启动广告活动并花费约 500 美元后不久，账号就因被指控分发恶意软件且网站遭入侵而被封禁。尽管应用已签名、公证且完全安全，封禁仍旧生效，导致开发者无法推广该工具。
面对严重指控，开发者展开了细致的内部审计以查明被标记的原因。对 Google Safe Browsing 和 Google Search Console 的检查表明，项目网站与下载渠道安全无异常。通过 VirusTotal 的第三方检测以及对 JavaScript 包和源码的人工审查，也未发现任何恶意、混淆或注入代码。该应用的核心功能是管理后台终端进程，虽然不太可能，但被怀疑可能触发了自动化安全系统。
申诉过程变成了一个循环的噩梦。每次申诉都被自动驳回，未给出具体说明或可操作的反馈。 Google 的不透明做法造成了一个 Catch-22：开发者被指严重违规，却没有机会了解指控细节或进行反驳。即便提交了详尽的技术证据和专业安全报告，也无法促成人工复审或撤销决定，这让人感到无助。
为排除合法后台进程管理被误判的可能，开发者甚至更新了软件，增加了更多清理行为。但账户依然被封，显示出开发者为遵守安全标准所做的努力与广告平台不透明的自动化执行机制之间存在严重脱节。此事凸显了个人开发者与大型科技公司之间的权力不平衡：一个未经证实的指控就能摧毁产品发布计划。
最终，缺乏明确信息的挫败感迫使开发者考虑极端手段，例如通过 EU redress 寻求法律救济。作者记录此事，旨在提醒大家关注这些自动封禁的武断性。在获得社区广泛关注后，账号最终在没有任何正式说明的情况下被恢复，这也表明外部曝光有时能解决那些常规申诉渠道忽视的问题。
The developer of RACE, a native macOS terminal multiplexer written in Rust, recently encountered a frustrating obstacle while attempting to advertise the software on Google Ads. Shortly after launching a campaign and spending five hundred dollars, the account was suspended due to alleged distribution of malicious software and a compromised site. Despite the application being signed, notarized, and entirely clean of any security threats, the suspension remained in effect, blocking the developer from promoting the tool.
Faced with these serious accusations, the developer initiated an exhaustive internal audit to identify the source of the flag. Rigorous checks against Google Safe Browsing and Google Search Console confirmed that both the project website and the download infrastructure were secure and free of issues. Furthermore, third-party verification via VirusTotal and manual reviews of the JavaScript bundles and source code yielded no evidence of malicious, obfuscated, or injected code. The application's core functionality, which involves managing background terminal processes, was scrutinized as a potential, though unlikely, trigger for automated security systems.
The process of appealing the suspension became a cyclical nightmare. Each appeal was met with an automated rejection, offering no specific explanation or actionable feedback regarding the alleged violation. The lack of transparency from Google created a Catch-22 situation, where the developer was accused of a grave policy breach without being granted the opportunity to understand or refute the claims. This complete absence of meaningful communication left the developer feeling helpless, as even the inclusion of detailed technical evidence and professional security reports failed to trigger a manual review or a reversal of the decision.
To address the possibility that the app's legitimate background process management was being misinterpreted by automated filters, the developer even updated the software with additional cleanup behaviors. Despite these efforts, the account remained blocked, illustrating a stark disconnect between the developer's attempts to comply with security standards and the opaque, automated enforcement mechanisms of the advertising platform. The situation highlighted the power imbalance between individual developers and massive tech conglomerates, where an unsubstantiated claim can completely derail a product launch.
Ultimately, the frustration caused by the lack of clarity forced the developer to consider extreme alternatives, such as pursuing legal action through EU redress options. By documenting the incident, the author sought to draw attention to the arbitrary nature of these automated bans. Following significant community attention, the account was eventually reinstated without any formal explanation, highlighting how external visibility can sometimes resolve issues that standard appeal channels are seemingly designed to ignore.
260 comments • Comments Link
• 许多用户反映，他们在 Google Maps 上的贡献常被不透明的自动化系统驳回，因而放弃该平台，转而使用 OpenStreetMap 等社区驱动的替代方案，因为后者允许更可靠、更透明的数据更新。
• Google Maps 的编辑机制难以在大规模运营与防范恶意行为者之间取得平衡，这导致系统趋于僵化，激进的垃圾信息过滤常常优先于用户体验。
• 在 Google 上，负面商业评论经常被自动标注为"诽谤"并遭审查，形成一种反馈循环：只有那些持续维护人工记录的用户，才有可能让事实性内容恢复显示。
• Google 的地址验证系统通常很僵化，难以处理诸如单体建筑多入口或非标准地址格式等边缘情况，用户在纠正错误时往往找不到有效的求助渠道。
• 有用户认为 Apple Maps 等竞争平台在更正流程上的响应更快，但这些平台依然存在数据准确性不稳定的问题，偶尔也会出现缺陷（只是宣传较少）。
• Google Search 与 YouTube 上"AI slop"和诈骗广告的增多，表明短期营收激励已压倒公司对用户安全和广告生态长期完整性的承诺。
• 许多人意识到向大型公司免费提供数据形成了一种剥削性循环，因此越来越倾向于使用不依赖垄断者意志的去中心化工具和开放数据集。
• 自动化支持系统已成为大型科技公司逃避问责和削减成本的常用策略，把用户困在无法获得人工干预的循环中。
• 像 EU's Digital Services Act 这样的监管框架开始要求更高的透明度和申诉机制，但技术用户对这些法律的实际执行与效果仍持怀疑态度。
• 像 Google 这样的公司缺乏问责制，并非单由个别员工的恶意造成，而是由复杂的企业壁垒、极端的规模以及把利润置于用户体验之上的商业模式共同导致。
总体讨论反映了人们对现代科技平台，尤其是 Google 垄断性与自动化倾向的普遍幻灭。参与者指出一个反复出现的问题：用户在贡献数据或尝试解决账户问题时，常被僵化、不透明且往往无效的算法系统阻挠。大家普遍认为，这些平台优先考虑利润和规模，往往以牺牲用户信任为代价；长期可行的出路要么是转向 OpenStreetMap 等去中心化的替代方案，要么是推动更严格的监管来监督这些公司。归根结底，人们之所以感到挫败，是因为这些公司不再把用户当作合作伙伴，而把他们视为可以由资源匮乏或过度限制的自动化系统管理的一次性数据来源。 • Contributions to Google Maps are frequently rejected by opaque, automated systems, leading users to abandon the platform in favor of community-driven alternatives like OpenStreetMap, which allow for more reliable and transparent data updates.
• The difficulty in editing Google Maps stems from a need to balance massive scale with protection against bad actors, resulting in "ossified" systems that prioritize aggressive spam filtering over user experience.
• Negative business reviews on Google are often censored through automated "defamatory" flags, creating a feedback loop where only those with persistent, manual documentation can hope to have their factual input restored.
• Google's address verification systems are often rigid and incapable of handling edge cases, such as multiple entrances for a single building or non-standard address formats, leaving users with no effective recourse to correct errors.
• Competing platforms like Apple Maps are perceived by some as having more responsive correction processes, although they still suffer from inconsistent data accuracy and occasional, though less publicized, limitations.
• The rise of "AI slop" and scam advertisements on Google Search and YouTube suggests that short-term revenue incentives currently outweigh the company's commitment to user safety or the long-term integrity of their advertising ecosystem.
• Many users have realized that providing free data to large corporations is an exploitative cycle, leading to a growing preference for decentralized tools and open datasets that do not rely on the whims of a monopolist.
• Automated support systems have become a standard strategy for large tech firms to avoid accountability and reduce overhead, effectively trapping users in loops where human intervention is impossible to obtain.
• Regulatory frameworks like the EU's Digital Services Act are beginning to mandate more transparency and appeal processes, though the practical enforcement and efficacy of these laws remain points of skepticism among technical users.
• The lack of accountability at companies like Google is not necessarily due to individual employee malice, but rather the result of complex corporate silos, extreme scale, and a business model that prioritizes profit over user experience.
The discussion reflects a broad disillusionment with the monopolistic and automated nature of modern tech platforms, specifically Google. Participants highlight a consistent pattern where legitimate user efforts to contribute data or resolve account issues are thwarted by inflexible, opaque, and often incompetent algorithmic systems. The consensus is that these platforms have prioritized profit and scale—often at the expense of user trust—and that the only viable long-term solution is to shift toward decentralized alternatives like OpenStreetMap or to advocate for stronger regulatory oversight. Ultimately, the frustration stems from the realization that these companies no longer view their users as partners, but as disposable sources of data that can be managed entirely by under-resourced or overly restrictive automation.