zlacker

>>surpri+(OP)
What would happen (theoretically) if ublock would be changed to not only hide the ads, but click on each and every one of them. Would that disincentivize ad networks to run ads because the data would be poisoned?

>>63stac+d7
Adnauseam (https://adnauseam.io/) does this

>>rahimn+q7
It's also illegal in many jurisdictions (e.g. in the US, viewed as a scheme to defraud advertisers by generating invalid clicks that cause financial harm, by depleting their budgets and push them to spend for fake traffic), but in practice it's way easier to just blacklist that IP / user.

The big networks filter such traffic, the small networks benefit from it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/legal/comments/1pq6kgp/is_it_legal_...

You may also get accidentally get your own website blacklisted or moved to a lower RPM tier, or provoke shadow-ban websites that you like to visit, or... generate more ad revenue for them.

>>rvnx+b8
Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face.

Any jurisdiction where this is supposedly illegal, it hasn't been court tested seriously.*

Per your link: "What you're describing is essentially the extension AdNauseam. So far they have not had any legal troubles, but they technically could." That stance or an assertion it's not illegal is consistent throughout the thread, provided you aren't clicking your own ads.

"The industry" thinks you shouldn't be allowed to fast forward your own VCR through an ad either. They can take a flying .. lesson.

* Disclaimer: I don't know if that's true, but it sounds true.

>>Terret+d9
>Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face.

No, the illegal-ness doesn't come from the clicking, it comes from the fact you're clicking with the intention of defrauding someone. That's also why filling out a credit card application isn't illegal, but filling out the same credit card application with phony details is.

>>gruez+Nd
The intent isn’t to defraud. The intent is to curb their uninvited data collection and anti-utility influence on the internet.

You’re not defrauding anyone if you have your extension click all ads in the background and make a personalized list for you that you can choose to review.

The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud.

>>_facto+Of
>The intent isn’t to defraud. The intent is to curb their uninvited data collection and anti-utility influence on the internet.

How's this any different than going around and filling out fake credit applications to stop "uninvited data collection" by banks/credit bureaus or whatever?

>The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud.

You're still harming the business, so my guess would be something like tortious interference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

>>gruez+zg
>How's this any different than going around and filling out fake credit applications to stop "uninvited data collection" by banks/credit bureaus or whatever?

It's so different that it can't even be compared. There's nothing similar there.

>>The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud.

> You're still harming the business, so my guess would be something like tortious interference.

No, you're not harming the business. You're simply not following the business idea of the "business". Anyone can have a business idea of some type. Not a single person on earth has any obligation to fulfill that business idea. But somehow some people believe the opposite.