zlacker

[return to "AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store"]
1. Spoom+ga[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:31:23
>>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...

◧◩
2. ben0x5+sb[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:39:23
>>Spoom+ga
People should still be giving Google shit for decisions like that, even if they're not surprised.
◧◩◪
3. morley+Af[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:05:16
>>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.
◧◩◪◨
4. nilved+Fg[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:11:29
>>morley+Af
Are you trying to relate clicking ads to smashing up merchandise?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. notaha+zk[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:34:23
>>nilved+Fg
Both actions are done with the stated intent of costing the target money. Sure, it only involves accessing URLs the public is actively encouraged to visit (in a manner intended to bring the system down) but so do many DDoS attacks...
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. ben0x5+5p[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:56:32
>>notaha+zk
A lot of things costing a company money are perfectly reasonable and we rightly complain if a company sabotages them. Things like leaving negative reviews/ratings, receiving refunds for defective products or shopping around to compare prices ultimately hurt someone's bottom line, so I think we can expect better from an analogy here.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. notaha+ey[view] [source] 2017-01-05 17:42:46
>>ben0x5+5p
I think "indiscriminately bombard ad networks with the intent of sabotaging the ad network's business" is a lot closer to my DDoS example (or smashing up a store) than "if a product proves to be disappointing, exercise my statutory right to a refund and/or tell people about it". I'd also feel Google could and probably should remove browser extensions whose distinctive feature was that they automated the process of submitting fake reviews or purchases/cancellations if they stumbled across a class of product the plugin designer disapproved of enough to want to harm the vendors' ability to continue selling it.
[go to top]