Is There A ToS For The Ads Here? Many Are BS

[Huerta88]

This morning I navigate over to straightdope.com, and count five ads/sponsored links. I get that this is the current business model, no problem.

What I don't get is the apparent lack of any filtering. The ads I got ranged from misleading to deceptive to probably-illegal. Three were for the incredibly annoying "Podunkville Single Mom [Loses 47 lbs./whitens teeth/discovers Acai scam] With Free Offer." That category of ad is really inappropriate because (1) gee, I live in Podunkville. It's almost like they just fake up a fictitious mom for wherever your IP range originates! (2) the products are clearly snake oil and no one, clearly, has lost 47 lbs. with them, so that's another false representation; and (3) these ads are notoriously deceptive for snaking people into registering their credit card for automatic negative-option billing of $90 a month after the "free trial." And many consumers report that cancelling the "convenient renewal supply" is far from easy.

I didn't see it today, but many of the diet ads that pop up on SDMB compound these sins by (completely illegally) misappropriating the likeness and logos of various news organizations or celebrities (Oprah, Racheal Ray -- you've seen it) to imply that they use or endorse whatever nostrum is being hawked.

The fourth ad was for "Extagen male enhancement" pills, and the linked site wasn't even as careful as the current-day Enzyte ads which (after criminal prosecution) have very gingerly refrained from making claims about actual lengthening of "manhoods." This site was basically fraudulent, with clearly-faked testimonials and medical claims.

The final link was to a site that would explain how to play poker, or rather, as I clicked through, steer you to a bunch of online poker sites where you can play for real money, which are illegal in the U.S.

How is the SDMB cool with this? I'll guarantee you that if I posted any of that garbage in the message board, I'd be ToS'd in a heartbeat, and rightfully so. I have no doubt that the response is going to be "we don't have any control over that, X is the adserver and they populate automatically." Well, I don't buy that -- if you have a commercial relationship of some sort with X, by definition, you at least have the right to complain/negotiate/request that problems be addressed. Has anyone even tried to prevent sleazy ads from being served? Or is the Pontius Pilate approach the official doctrine?

[Harmonious Discord]

I was going to say something about this at one point, but didn't. Ad after ad was scam ads. It's stuff that we have debunked on this same board as bogus claims. It's irony at it's best.

[Happy Poster]

these adverts are based partly on your google searches. Me, I get served up penis reduction ads.

[runner pat]

these adverts are based partly on your google searches. Me, I get served up penis reduction ads.

That's what happens when you search for "vanishing point". :p

[Liberal]

Ads? There are ads?

[racer72]

Ads? There are ads?

Shhhh. Don't want to let Cecil know about that.

[C K Dexter Haven]

As a paid member, you don't see the ads.

Meanwhile, my understanding is that this is a deal with Google. Neither the Straight Dope nor Ed have any control over what ads are shown.

[Huerta88]

As a paid member, you don't see the ads.

Meanwhile, my understanding is that this is a deal with Google. Neither the Straight Dope nor Ed have any control over what ads are shown.

There are Google Ads at the bottom, in textual form. So noted.

But there are also banner ads on the main page and the message board. Are you telling me those are all Google served? I don't buy that. I see some third party designation of origin.

Your comment is also spot on as to my original prediction -- the BS about "we don't have any control" evades my question -- why don't you assert or seek some control, even as to the Google ads? If they are outright fraudulent in particular? Lame-ass copout. Is Google unreacheable? What might be their domain address? The world may never know!!!

[Duckster]

They are called targeted ads and a new survey out this past week (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20090929-Tailored_Advertising.pdf) (PDF warning) says web users hate them.

[fubbleskag]

Shhhh. Don't want to let Cecil know about that.that there are ads, or that some of us don't see them?

[Fear Itself]

I'll guarantee you that if I posted any of that garbage in the message board, I'd be ToS'd in a heartbeat, and rightfully so. Not if you were sending them checks every month.

[BigT]

Until these places can get their act together and not produce blatantly false, inherently annoying, or downright malware infested ads, I have opted out of seeing any of them. Every once in a while I opt to see what everyone else sees, and within 5 minutes, I'm back to opting out.

The only time I had an ethical problem with this was on this very site, and a beneficent benefactor came to my rescue, with a little help from someone carrying a really long tube.

I suspect ads will work in the same way as SPAM, which remains popular even though no one I know ever sees it.

/Serious suggestion: Clear your Google cookies. Or all of 'em. You should get different ads.

[Measure for Measure]

How is the SDMB cool with this? Check out the backpages of the Chicago Reader some time. If it is like most freesheets, advertising standards are not especially restrictive.

[Lynn Bodoni]

As it happens, I've been to Chicago a couple of times, and both times I picked up a copy of the Reader. I got the distinct impression that at least some Chicagoans have rather specific sexual tastes, and are not shy about getting those tastes fulfilled. I browsed both the personals and the business personals. If I ever have a desperate need that I want to fulfill, I will go to Chicago, where I'm sure to find someone who'll fill it. No matter what "it" is.

[Liberal]

Hey, baby, wait'll you go to Vegas! You get it for free! — as long as you gamble away six figures.

[C K Dexter Haven]

There are Google Ads at the bottom, in textual form. So noted.

But there are also banner ads on the main page and the message board. Are you telling me those are all Google served? I don't buy that. I see some third party designation of origin.

Your comment is also spot on as to my original prediction -- the BS about "we don't have any control" evades my question -- why don't you assert or seek some control, even as to the Google ads? If they are outright fraudulent in particular? Lame-ass copout. Is Google unreacheable? What might be their domain address? The world may never know!!!I don't see any adds, textual, banner, or otherwise, on the Message Board page (after I've logged in) and that's what I thought this was about. This is one of the perks of being a paid member.

Ads on the main READER page: whom do you mean by "you." The decisions and authority you're talking about are many levels higher than us (the mods and admins on the Message Boards.). I've been using the analogy that we the mods are like ushers at the movie theater: we can quiet unruly guests, we can clean up litter. If you have a complaint about the comfort of the seat, or the ads being shown before the movie starts :D , there's not much we can do.

Those are management decisions. We can only relay your complaint to management. That's why I said we (the mods) don't have any control. Yelling at us won't help. We (the mods) have no power or authority to negotiate with Google, any more than the movie theater ushers have the ability to negotiate with MGM over the product placement in the films being shown.

This particular complaint about ads that inconsistent with The Straight Dope's goal of fighting ignorance, has been relayed upstairs several times, and upper management's answer has always been: sorry, but that's the way it is. Negotiation with Google to limit ads to those that we feel are "acceptable" would lower income, require enormous amounts of mangement time, and I don't recollect if it was even possible for Google to apply such a filter.

I can relay your comments yet again, but I don't expect any different answer.

[Huerta88]

require enormous amounts of mangement time, and I don't recollect if it was even possible for Google to apply such a filter.

I can relay your comments yet again, but I don't expect any different answer.

Thanks.

I will re-subscribe -- I guess I did not realize it eliminated everything commercial in the SDMB, including banners.

The above excuse from mgmt., though, is weak stuff (not blaming you). I'll do the job, for $15 a week.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

Thanks.

I will re-subscribe -- I guess I did not realize it eliminated everything commercial in the SDMB, including banners.

Just so you know, subscribing doesn't remove the banner ads on the Straight Dope front page. Only ads on the message board are gone.

[RayMan]

What does ToS mean?

[C K Dexter Haven]

Just so you know, subscribing doesn't remove the banner ads on the Straight Dope front page. Only ads on the message board are gone.Correct; I thought I was clear on that. Basically, only the ads are gone in the area where one can register, obviously, so just on the Message Boards. Not on the home page, not on the Archives, etc.

ToS means "Terms of Service."

[Lute Skywatcher]

Never mind. Bad idea.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Minor nitpick, the former owners of Enzyte got into legal trouble because of fraudulent billing, not because of false claims. Enzyte is pretty much free to make euphemisms for their product making your dick bigger, since having a small dick is not a medical condition. Or something.

[Huerta88]

Minor nitpick, the former owners of Enzyte got into legal trouble because of fraudulent billing, not because of false claims. Enzyte is pretty much free to make euphemisms for their product making your dick bigger, since having a small dick is not a medical condition. Or something.
Not to be an ass -- but is there a cite? I thought they also got in trouble for the Smilin' Bob added three inches claims, which were medically insubstantiable . . . I agree the billing fraud is the easier claim, you're dead on there . . .

[Liberal]

Here is a summary of the original complaint (http://www.hagens-berman.com/frontend?command=Lawsuit&task=viewLawsuitDetail&iLawsuitId=662), filed by Hagens Berman on behalf of Enzyte consumers.

Here is the complaint in full (http://www.hagens-berman.com/files/Enzyte%20Complaint%20FINAL%20(Web)1079561582221.pdf). PDF File

Here is the result (http://www.jsonline.com/business/32585859.html):

A business owner behind the “Smiling Bob” ads that tout the sexual enhancement product Enzyte was sentenced Wednesday to 25 years in prison for defrauding customers. Steve Warshak, 42, founder of Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, also was ordered to pay $93,000 in fines. He was convicted in February on 93 counts of conspiracy, fraud and money laundering. Federal prosecutors accused the company, which sells a variety of herbal supplements, of bilking customers out of more than $400 million with deceptive ads, manipulated credit card transactions and refusal to accept returns or cancel orders. In Cincinnati, U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel ordered Warshak, his mother, the company and another defendant to forfeit more than $500 million, including whatever was available from bank accounts, cars and homes, a grand piano and a membership in a California spa.

[TubaDiva]

The ads are still running -- I saw new Enzyte ads last night.

[Huerta88]

The ads are still running -- I saw new Enzyte ads last night.

Yes. As noted, they have carefully calibrated them to disclaim (but still imply) "enlargement." Their official story now, albeit shrouded behind lots of enlargement-implying innuendo, is that the "supplement" just helps increase blood flow to lead to more fully-erect erections, which would be "larger" than a semi-erection. As I am sure they have no peer-evaluated proof for that, either, I hope they get sued/prosecuted again. N.B. that the FDA safe harbor ("this product is not intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any disease") is a fairly broad one, though, and they may be relying on that disclaimer.

[Ed Zotti]

This morning I navigate over to straightdope.com, and count five ads/sponsored links. I get that this is the current business model, no problem.

What I don't get is the apparent lack of any filtering. The ads I got ranged from misleading to deceptive to probably-illegal. Three were for the incredibly annoying "Podunkville Single Mom [Loses 47 lbs./whitens teeth/discovers Acai scam] With Free Offer." That category of ad is really inappropriate because (1) gee, I live in Podunkville. It's almost like they just fake up a fictitious mom for wherever your IP range originates! (2) the products are clearly snake oil and no one, clearly, has lost 47 lbs. with them, so that's another false representation; and (3) these ads are notoriously deceptive for snaking people into registering their credit card for automatic negative-option billing of $90 a month after the "free trial." And many consumers report that cancelling the "convenient renewal supply" is far from easy.

I didn't see it today, but many of the diet ads that pop up on SDMB compound these sins by (completely illegally) misappropriating the likeness and logos of various news organizations or celebrities (Oprah, Racheal Ray -- you've seen it) to imply that they use or endorse whatever nostrum is being hawked.

The fourth ad was for "Extagen male enhancement" pills, and the linked site wasn't even as careful as the current-day Enzyte ads which (after criminal prosecution) have very gingerly refrained from making claims about actual lengthening of "manhoods." This site was basically fraudulent, with clearly-faked testimonials and medical claims.

The final link was to a site that would explain how to play poker, or rather, as I clicked through, steer you to a bunch of online poker sites where you can play for real money, which are illegal in the U.S.

How is the SDMB cool with this? I'll guarantee you that if I posted any of that garbage in the message board, I'd be ToS'd in a heartbeat, and rightfully so. I have no doubt that the response is going to be "we don't have any control over that, X is the adserver and they populate automatically." Well, I don't buy that -- if you have a commercial relationship of some sort with X, by definition, you at least have the right to complain/negotiate/request that problems be addressed. Has anyone even tried to prevent sleazy ads from being served? Or is the Pontius Pilate approach the official doctrine?Most of the ads you complain about are sold by brokers who distribute them to websites like ours on a bulk basis. We have no contact with the advertiser, and do not have the ability to pick and choose ads. You can beef to the broker about a particular ad, but the likelihood of this having much impact is small.

Our policy on poker sites is that we accept ads from gateway sites, which offer links to gaming sites but do not offer for-pay gaming themselves. We don't accept (and have turned down) ads from gaming sites. We are, I concede, taking a letter-of-the-law approach here: online for-pay gaming is illegal in the U.S.; promoting online for-pay gaming is not.

[Liberal]

The ads are still running -- I saw new Enzyte ads last night.Right. Since it's a corporation, it is considered in the US to be a rights-bearing entity like any other — meaning, it is treated like a person. Even though the top officers paid huge fines and went to prison, the corporation carried on. The court ruling did not dissolve the corporation. The board would have elected new officers and hired a new president. And life goes on.