zlacker

>>yuvada+(OP)
"Company which makes its money from advertising bans automated click fraud extension from being used in its browser."

>>nimbix+K8
Not that I'm really surprised by Google's action, but "fraud" is a pretty strong word for what's happening, and pretty disingenuous IMO. No one's pretending to be anyone they're not.

>>acobst+ue
Click fraud is a standard industry term for robot initiated clicks, which this is a case of. What this extension generates are certainly not legitimate clicks form interested users, or even unintentional clicks that happen due to various reasons (some HN readers like to blame them on dark patterns, but they're really just of a consequence of the fact that ad tech is just not that great in general).

>>nimbix+Ng
No, it is not. It is an industry term for robot initiated clicks for the purpose of profiting, that is the "FRAUD" part, just clicking random ads is not defrauding any party to the benefit of another, it just wastes resources.

>>kylebe+Wh
Do you think it is fraud to order a pizza to be delivered to someone else's house, because you are a vegetarian and wish to destroy the business model of meat-based pizza?

How about doing this to every pizza store you encounter that serves meat?

You're not profiting..just wasting a business's resources by misrepresenting your identity and intentions.

>>flower+Dk
Someone clicking an ad is not a) making an order or b) pretending to be someone else, which seem kinda instrumental for the fraud in your analogy. The ad didn't get served with a ToS document explaining that by clicking it, you enter into a contract or whatever. It's your decision to pay money based on ad clicks, and it doesn't somehow oblige people who have nothing to do with you to only click ads in the manner you intended.

>>ben0x5+4r
Alright, how about an example with no orders? Let's say you think the police state is evil, and you wish to destroy it by wasting its resources. Is making automated empty 911 calls justified?

Just because you intend to use the 911 hotline as an emergency resource surely shouldn't impede my right as a phone owner from calling it in the manner you intended. It's my god-given right as a phonebook owner to call whatever numbers I see fit in whatever quantities I want to.

It doesn't even have to be 911. You can DDOS the phone lines of any business to make them less effective. Is this ethically defensible?

>>flower+Bu
This analogy is still a stretch. Both are examples of DDOS which prevents legitimate requests from going through.

This is more the equivalent of replying to every piece of physical junk mail that you get using their provided self-stamped return envelopes. I think you'd be hard to pressed to argue that, while being a jerk move, you're still aren't entitled to do it.