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
In a credit application there is a signature and binding contract. If I fill in false information knowingly, the intent is clear and written.

If you send me an unsolicited mailer with a microchip that tracks my eyes and face as I read it, you’ve already pushed too far. To then claim my using a robot to read it for me is fraud ignores the invasion of privacy you’ve already instituted without my express consent (digital ads are this).

It’s not fraud if it’s self-defense from corporate overreach.

>>_facto+Yh
>In a credit application there is a signature and binding contract. If I fill in false information knowingly, the intent is clear and written.

At best that gets you off the hook of fraud charges, but not tort claims, which are civil, and don't require intent.

>It’s not fraud if it’s self-defense from corporate overreach.

There's no concept of "self-defense" when it comes to fraud, or torts.

>>gruez+cj
I am super curious how far this goes. If, hypothetically, I wore some sort of glasses that kept facial recognition from identifying and tracking me at my local grocery store, would that constitute a civil infringement in the future?

What about extensions that skip embedded ads in a YouTube video? Is that tortuous interference with the view counter that creators use to market their reach?