zlacker

>>yuvada+(OP)
At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised?

AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money. Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense.

There is even a method to install it directly[1] which AFAIK Google has not blocked.

Granted, if Google were not both running the browser and the ad network, these actions probably wouldn't have been taken. But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top.

1. https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...

>>Spoom+ga
People should still be giving Google shit for decisions like that, even if they're not surprised.

>>ben0x5+sb
Why does Google deserve the shit for stopping people from taking money from them? I wouldn't think to give a department store shit for pressing charges against someone who smashed up a bunch of merchandise, whether or not the act was politically motivated.

>>morley+Af
As far as I know, there are laws against smashing up a bunch of merchandise you haven't paid for, and the department store would probably press charges rather than taking advantage of the fact that they're part of a conglomerate providing medical insurance to refuse coverage to the protestors on shaky grounds.

>>chrisr+Eg
Google's lobbyists may well be pushing for laws against "click fraud".

(I'm just guessing that's what they might call it.)

>>leeree+vl
They might! The case they would have to make seems pretty shaky to me, but legislators have done some things that seem pretty ridiculous to me in the past, and I am sure there is plenty more coming.

That doesn't make acting in such blatantly bad faith until you are able to take legal action forgivable.