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.

To be fair, you put it in your own face, by visiting the site...

>>WarmWa+fh
I mean, (not to you, as we go in the same direction, in general), just block it.

The goal of Adnauseam was to hurt Google, and other big adnetworks, from what I understand.

By blocking:

    -> Advertiser is not harmed
    -> For the adnetwork: No ad revenue
    -> Publisher is not harmed
    -> Pages load faster

--> Google is earning less (if this is part of your ideological fight) and you get rewarded with a better experience, and you are legally safe

==

With fake clicks:

    -> Advertiser is harmed
    -> Publisher is harmed
    -> Adnetwork is okayish with the situation (to a certain point)

-> You hurt websites and products that you like (or would statistically like)

--> Google is accidentally earning more revenue (at least temporarily, until you get shadow-banned), your computer / page loads slows down and you enter a legally gray area.

(+ the side-note below: clicking on every ads leak your browsing history because in the URL there is a unique tracking ID that connects to the page you are viewing)

>>rvnx+oj
"-> Publisher is not harmed"

How? Publishers do need revenue and this can deprive them of this income.

>>freita+hR
Fair enough. I took the principle that revenue = 0 if no conversion, but in reality this is not true at all.