zlacker

Wow, 'Do no evil' huh?

>>mtarno+(OP)
I assume AdNauseam's random clicking is viewed as click fraud[1] by Google. Then, I'm guessing click fraud falls under the "Interfering with Third-party Ads and Websites" section[2] of the developer policy.

[1]https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/16737?hl=en

[2]https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/program_policies (ctrl-f, then search for "Interfering with Third-party Ads and Websites")

Edit: Hmm, below is correct. The "single purpose" policy is pretty hard to understand, and the reason Google gave for banning it. The policy above would seem more applicable.

>>tyingq+L3
That's not the justification the store gave for banning it, though.

>>tyingq+L3
A policy of not "Interfering with Apps, Third-party Ads, or Device Functionality" in the Chrome Store sounds like it'd outrule every adblocker.

The description of that rule also doesn't seem to apply: "Ads associated with your app must not interfere with other apps, ads, or the operation of the device, including system or device buttons and ports." It's specifically under the ads section of the policy.

I'm not sure the policy applies in any way to Chrome either: "...ensure that together we continue to deliver the world's most innovative and trusted apps to over a billion people through Google Play." EDIT: The link has been changed and now points to the equivalent Chrome Store policy. My other 2 points remain true though.

>>mcinty+R5
I was just trying to guess their underlying reason.

I can see, however, a view that "not loading" an ad doesn't qualify as "interfering" with it...but clicking on it for the purpose of disruption is considered "interfering".

Also, I updated the link to point at chrome extension policy vs app store policy. The wording is similar.

>>tyingq+U6
You're right that the wording is similar for the chrome extension policy. The section about interfering with ads is still under "Ads in Chrome Apps & Extensions" and the wording for the description is "Ads associated with your app or extension may not interfere with any ads on a third-party website or application.".

It's still clearly referring only to ads that are part of an extension, and AdNauseam obviously doesn't have any so it can't be the reason.

I ctrl+f'd ads to see what else they say, it's almost all in that section that doesn't apply but one thing that came up was "Impersonation or Deceptive Behavior" under Content Policies which contains the wording " Products or the ads they contain also must not mimic functionality or warnings from a user's operating system or browser". I wonder if that could be argued to apply - mimicking click functionality?

>>mcinty+S9
Ahh, yeah. So they only specifically care about interfering from an extension if the extension's ads are interfering.

I guess they just invented this "single purpose" policy to be able to ban things without coming right out and saying "you're hurting our revenue stream" :)

There must be someone from legal that's advising them not to ever say anything specific about extensions that mess with ads.