[notorandit]

We should not outsource security to Google.

If you prepare a ligit-looking web page where you instruct people to download and run malware, we'd better learn more on security and caution before blindly follow those directions.

Why should it be Google's (or Bing's) duty to filter those out?

[Ukv]

> Why should it be Google's (or Bing's) duty to filter those out?

Google intentionally disguises ads as search results, and even lets advertisers present a fake URL. When the system's purpose is to profit from tricking inattentive users, I think they should take on some liability for the outcome of what they're tricking people into doing.

Not to say that better teaching security isn't also a good idea.

[secretballot]

Why should Google be responsible for content they accept money to promote on their website, and then elect to disguise as "natural" search results specifically in order to trick you into clicking them without realizing they're ads?

The answers are in the question.

[vimda]

It may not be their duty to filter it out, but it should definitely be their duty to not take money to bump it to the top of their results. Let the algorithm dump random unlinked medium posts on the 5th page where they belong

[1e1a]

True, but Google shouldn't be allowing obvious malware advertisements on their platform.