United Kingdom

4094 readers

122 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

122

If Britain is so bothered by China, why do these .gov.uk sites use Chinese ad brokers? (www.theregister.com)

submitted 6 months ago by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

At least 18 public-sector websites in the UK and US send visitor data in some form to various web advertising brokers – including an ad-tech biz in China involved in past privacy controversies, a security firm claims.

[…]

In the US, .gov websites are not supposed to run ads. In the UK, ads are allowed on .gov.uk websites, subject to some limitations. The .gov and .gov.uk sites flagged by Silent Push each publish an ads.txt file that spells out the businesses allowed to automatically sell that site's ad space to advertisers as a visitor arrives.

[…] Silent Push found a bunch of UK and US government websites with [the ads.txt] file listing various advertising exchanges and resellers ranging from Google (like what El Reg uses) to one in China.

[…]

One of the ad-tech vendors used by the .gov.uk sites, and highlighted by Silent Push, is Yeahmobi. This Chinese entity reportedly had its mobile ad SDK removed from the Google Play Store in 2018 for alleged ad fraud. Yeahmobi did not respond to requests for comment.

[…]

Silent Push's report identifies four .gov sites that, in our experience, do not display adverts though do ping web ad platforms, do list various exchanges in their ads.txt files, and may break US government CISA rules. In the UK, it's a different story, as 18 sites identified by Silent Push use Yeahmobi among others to display ads somewhere on pages.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 26 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Nevermind using chinese ad brokers why do .gov.uk websites have ads in the first place lol?

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

These seem to be mostly websites for small city/district councils, who have never had huge budgets, and their budgets have been cut by the current central government.

My guess is either:

Someone thought it was a quick way to add a few quid to the budget
They were offered a discount by the contractor who runs their website if they allowed ads
Some dodgy contractor inserted the ads without telling the council, because they thought nobody would notice, and they're owned by a councillor's nephew.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago

The UK has come to terms with it's inexorable slide into developing nation status and figured it might as well shill a few boner pills along the way.

[–] FuckyWucky@hexbear.net 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

UK sounds desperate for any revenue to show a lower deficit %. It can't increase revenues by raising taxes on the rich so it does silly shit like this.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 6 months ago

They don't as far as I'm aware, I'm not sure what this post is about. They definitely don't have ads on.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Maybe they're trying to get analytics service at no cost, if that's something offered by the ad broker? Easier than trying to fight for funding for it? It does seem kind of odd.

[–] FarFarAway@startrek.website 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Maybe they're ads for their own government services? Technically, an adverstment doesn't have to just be for skeezy companies trying to steal your info or money.

Like your on the drivers license pages and you see a space on the side that "advertises" getting your license renewed. It's more flashy and draws attention more than just a link to help people find what they're looking for easier.

Not in the UK, but my official city page has 3 advertments prior to getting to the body of the page (which is the offical link tree). One for reporting a concern, one for the recreation department, and a rotating one for more receration stuff and the transparency department.

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why would you need an ad broker to advertise your own shit. Like just put it there? Using the ad broker would be all of the same work except with more middleman.

[–] FarFarAway@startrek.website 1 points 6 months ago

Idk, maybe they get all the analytics, like someone else mentioned.

I just know there are "ads" on government websites I've seen that don't necessarily follow the traditional concept of what we've come to know as advertisements, but are adverstments none the less. How they're set up, and what function they serve beyond directing people to a different place, is beyond me.

Maybe I should have phrased it differently... Adverstments aren't always from sketchy companies stealing your info, sometimes they're from sketchy governments too...