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
If I have a friend who I know is interested in a particular author, and I notice that that author has released a new book, is it evil for me to tell my friend?

I don't think it is. I'm connecting a producer and a consumer in both of their best interests. When the producer is the one who asks an entity like Facebook "who enjoys this author?" and advertises the new book to them, why is this evil?

People have desires, and without advertising it is very difficult to connect those people with producers who can fulfill them.

I think advertising isn't inherently evil, just some tactics used to persuade people with misinformation.

>>flower+hl
Ignoring your false equivalence:

If you already want something, then the ads are useless because the entire point of an ad is to manipulate me into buying something I didn't want to buy.

If I want to buy the book already because I am interested in the author's books then the books sell themselves without need for ads.