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
If you look at it as the extension performs fraud, then what Google did is completely defensible. And I feel that it does. You may not feel that way exactly, but it's certainly justifiable that the extensions actions defraud the ad network.

>>fryguy+si
Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?

>>mattle+sj
Fraud is a poor word choice, because it is a legal term. There must be a better word out there.

>>em3rge+bl
Attorney here! (But not your attorney and not giving legal advice -- seek qualified counsel in your state if you need assistance.)

Sending automated clicks to ads arguably meets all the elements of common-law fraud:

(1) A false representation of fact (that the user clicked on the ad);

(2) Knowledge of the falsity (by the user installing and using the extension);

(3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!);

(4) Reasonable reliance by the innocent party (by believing the "click" was real and intended);

(5) Actual loss suffered (by paying the owner/operator of the page containing the ad)

In my view, therefore, "fraud" is an applicable term.

>>otterl+Fp
Since the packets are being sent to your computer, I consider the situation analogous to a someone coming to your home and then you replying to them with bogus information. Maybe that still fits this definition of fraud, in which case I would say I don't believe such fraud should be legally suable. I think the users property rights of their computer trumps the advertiser's complaint about fraud.

>>em3rge+Wr
The distinction is automation versus manual process. If you manually reply with bogus information, then your illustration works. When you automate the process, there's no intervention on your part. Ad blocking is fine with me, but when you intentionally click on ads in an automated way, this becomes click fraud. There's a certain level of click fraud that is tolerated by Google, but AdNaseum takes it too far IMO.

>>WhiteO+aI
You're joking right? You obviously never automated bogus reply on the phone answering machine for one or the other reason. If you don't pick a phone at home and answering machine takes it, are you comiting a fraud because it is automated and telling everyone that you're not home.