zlacker

>>yuvada+(OP)
Can someone explain what the point of silently clicking the ads is? Why not just block them? Does clicking the ads somehow aid in blocking or is it a way of fighting back against perceived abuses by advertisers?

>>xwowse+P6
It's supposed to mess up the stats and inject uncertainty into ad analysis.

They are trying to bring down the price of ads on the internet, thus making them unprofitable. I hope they succeed.

>>iUsedT+G7
I find it a bit harsh to be so hostile towards online ads. After all, it's has been a significant source of income for innovative companies or services that couldn't exist otherwise, because users are notoriously reluctant to pay for virtual goods.

Yes, tracking and overly intrusive fullpage popups are real issues, but not all ads are inherently evil.

>>blaudi+2b
I can't name a single online service that is supported by ads and that I couldn't live without.

>not all ads are inherently evil.

All advertising is manipulation. Advertisers are bad and should feel bad.

>>_ofdw+uc
Serious question, but how do you feel about persuasion? Is all persuasion inherently manipulative, or are there some types of persuasion/marketing that don't cross the line and become "manipulation"?

>>Christ+qe
It's a blurry line, but I believe it passes far to the left of advertising.

One dimension of that distinction is intent - are you trying to persuade me having my best interests in mind (including not applying the technique if you're not sure about the consequences)? Then I'll probably be fine with it, and consider it an act of friendship. Are you trying to exploit me by convincing me to make self-harming decisions? I'd consider this an act of malice. An attack.

Advertising of all kinds would be fine if it performed just the information function - by honestly trying to paint the whole picture and give all relevant information to enable customers to make a rational choice. As it is today, it's squarely in the malicious, abusive zone.