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. fryguy+si[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:21:10
>>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.
◧◩◪◨
4. mattle+sj[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:26:15
>>fryguy+si
Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Analem+Bl[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:40:10
>>mattle+sj
Yes? I'm honestly not sure how you could think otherwise. This is a clickbot just like any other.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. heropr+Ip[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:59:17
>>Analem+Bl
It's arguable. Fraud generally requires intent to result in financial or personal gain. There's no gain here for the user. There's gain for the advertising company at the expense of the company purchasing the advertisements.

But the advertising company is supposed to well-qualify their targets, right? It's on them for serving and charging for advertisements to people who don't want them or will 'click them' regardless of content.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. hsod+OK[view] [source] 2017-01-05 18:52:57
>>heropr+Ip
I'm not a lawyer, but according to this definition the fraud perpetrator need not gain, only cause injury to the fraud victim:

"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. heropr+MU[view] [source] 2017-01-05 19:54:48
>>hsod+OK
If we take that definition, what is misleading? Users are presented with something asking them to click and then they just automate the clicking. They aren't attempting deceit through their actions.

Now, if the advertiser knows that people are clicking things through a script, and has some clause with their agreement with the company that says 'We won't charge you when this happens' but charges them anyway, that would be deceit. But it'd be on the part of the advertiser to the company buying the advertisements.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. hsod+q91[view] [source] 2017-01-05 21:38:14
>>heropr+MU
> They aren't attempting deceit through their actions.

You don't think so? Isn't the whole point of this extension to try and trick advertisers into paying for non-existent user engagement?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. aninhu+Ph2[view] [source] 2017-01-06 13:21:27
>>hsod+q91
But the user never makes any kind of claim or promise that their advert clicking represents real user engagement.

It's up to the advertiser to accurately classify user behaviour, and the user has no responsibility to make that easy for them.

[go to top]