zlacker

[parent] [thread] 40 comments
1. xwowse+(OP)[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:12:35
Can someone explain what the point of silently clicking the ads is? Why not just block them? Does clicking the ads somehow aid in blocking or is it a way of fighting back against perceived abuses by advertisers?
replies(4): >>tetrep+v >>iUsedT+R >>azdle+V >>eloran+M3
2. tetrep+v[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:15:08
>>xwowse+(OP)
The idea is to mess with advertisers' metrics. If people using ad blockers are peaceful protesters, AdNauseam is trying to riot.
replies(2): >>tyingq+r1 >>colept+mb
3. iUsedT+R[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:16:45
>>xwowse+(OP)
It's supposed to mess up the stats and inject uncertainty into ad analysis.

They are trying to bring down the price of ads on the internet, thus making them unprofitable. I hope they succeed.

replies(2): >>blaudi+d4 >>Viking+xJ
4. azdle+V[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:17:36
>>xwowse+(OP)
It's impossible to block all ads and trackers, especially now that so many people load vital resources from CDNs controlled by the tracking companies. With something like AdNauseam you add noise to your actual browsing so that it makes the data about you less valuable. If everyone were to use it suddenly no one would pay for the data and since it's no longer profitable it would stop. At least, I assume that's the theory.
replies(1): >>joebla+L3
◧◩
5. tyingq+r1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 15:21:14
>>tetrep+v
Assuming they aren't detected as fraudulent, it's messing with more than metrics. The advertisers, in many cases, are paying per click.

Edit: Not making a judgement here, just clarifying that the extension is doing more than messing with metrics.

replies(2): >>Aldo_M+T4 >>ben0x5+Vk
◧◩
6. joebla+L3[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 15:32:59
>>azdle+V
> especially now that so many people load vital resources from CDNs controlled by the tracking companies.

I've been noticing this trend. I have a pretty extensive hosts file and this one site I visit started displaying ads. I had to double check to make sure my hosts file was correct and it turned out that they were saving the ads from their own CDN.

7. eloran+M3[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:33:06
>>xwowse+(OP)
Advertising networks create profiles of users based on online activity including searches. It's called profiling. The ads you see are relevant to your interests as it is described in your profile. By randomly clicking on ads you render the profile irrelevant.
replies(1): >>openas+Gf
◧◩
8. blaudi+d4[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 15:35:58
>>iUsedT+R
I find it a bit harsh to be so hostile towards online ads. After all, it's has been a significant source of income for innovative companies or services that couldn't exist otherwise, because users are notoriously reluctant to pay for virtual goods.

Yes, tracking and overly intrusive fullpage popups are real issues, but not all ads are inherently evil.

replies(5): >>philip+b5 >>_ofdw+F5 >>hedora+De >>ameliu+4k >>jlaroc+Wv
◧◩◪
9. Aldo_M+T4[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 15:41:14
>>tyingq+r1
The advertisers don't mind paying for disruptive, intrusive, battery-draining, bandwidth-consuming, rich-media advertisements, so I don't mind draining their wallets.
replies(1): >>Viking+QK
◧◩◪
10. philip+b5[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 15:43:27
>>blaudi+d4
Not all dictators are inherently evil either, but because of the state into which a dictatorial ecosystem inevitably declines, we don't want them either.
◧◩◪
11. _ofdw+F5[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 15:46:21
>>blaudi+d4
I can't name a single online service that is supported by ads and that I couldn't live without.

>not all ads are inherently evil.

All advertising is manipulation. Advertisers are bad and should feel bad.

replies(6): >>Christ+B7 >>dpark+a8 >>CaptSp+P8 >>blaudi+1a >>flower+se >>Viking+fK
◧◩◪◨
12. Christ+B7[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 15:58:06
>>_ofdw+F5
Serious question, but how do you feel about persuasion? Is all persuasion inherently manipulative, or are there some types of persuasion/marketing that don't cross the line and become "manipulation"?
replies(1): >>TeMPOr+8b
◧◩◪◨
13. dpark+a8[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:01:14
>>_ofdw+F5
> I can't name a single online service that is supported by ads and that I couldn't live without.

How about search and email? All the major players are ad supported.

replies(2): >>djsumd+Ja >>godsha+uH
◧◩◪◨
14. CaptSp+P8[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:05:39
>>_ofdw+F5
https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebD...

> essentially all of the ad supported sites I visit are diversions

◧◩◪◨
15. blaudi+1a[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:12:29
>>_ofdw+F5
I prefer classic advertisement labelled as such over subliminal manipulation like product placements or fake reviews / fake "fans" on social platforms.

And frankly, I even discovered products through ads I might have never found otherwise, even though that's not how it should be in a perfect world.

◧◩◪◨⬒
16. djsumd+Ja[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:16:12
>>dpark+a8
I run my own email service. I also find search currently very disappointing. Google, Yahoo, duckduckgo? Remember when they were several major indexes? Lycos, Altavista, etc.

Today Google actively removes things from their index at the requests of various governments and entertainment industries. We have very little choice in search, leaving much of the web unlocatable.

replies(1): >>notaha+Le
◧◩◪◨⬒
17. TeMPOr+8b[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:18:32
>>Christ+B7
It's a blurry line, but I believe it passes far to the left of advertising.

One dimension of that distinction is intent - are you trying to persuade me having my best interests in mind (including not applying the technique if you're not sure about the consequences)? Then I'll probably be fine with it, and consider it an act of friendship. Are you trying to exploit me by convincing me to make self-harming decisions? I'd consider this an act of malice. An attack.

Advertising of all kinds would be fine if it performed just the information function - by honestly trying to paint the whole picture and give all relevant information to enable customers to make a rational choice. As it is today, it's squarely in the malicious, abusive zone.

◧◩
18. colept+mb[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:19:54
>>tetrep+v
That's like harming the Pope to get back at God.

AdNauseum doesn't hurt advertising networks, it hurts publishers. When they get banned for click fraud, the network keeps the money.

replies(2): >>hedora+Nf >>malka+5h
◧◩◪◨
19. flower+se[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:38:33
>>_ofdw+F5
If I have a friend who I know is interested in a particular author, and I notice that that author has released a new book, is it evil for me to tell my friend?

I don't think it is. I'm connecting a producer and a consumer in both of their best interests. When the producer is the one who asks an entity like Facebook "who enjoys this author?" and advertises the new book to them, why is this evil?

People have desires, and without advertising it is very difficult to connect those people with producers who can fulfill them.

I think advertising isn't inherently evil, just some tactics used to persuade people with misinformation.

replies(1): >>_ofdw+lN1
◧◩◪
20. hedora+De[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:39:37
>>blaudi+d4
This extension only clicks tracking ads. The authors seem to primarily be upset about mass surveillance.

I'd hope that it enables do not track, and also checks for tracking cookies before clicking, but haven't looked carefully.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
21. notaha+Le[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:40:09
>>djsumd+Ja
I don't remember Lycos/Altavista etc rendering anywhere near as much of the web (as a proportion of what existed back then) locatable, having a radical stance on copyright or having less obtrusive ads...
replies(1): >>dpark+jj
◧◩
22. openas+Gf[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:43:57
>>eloran+M3
But what if you clicked on no ads at all? Doesn't that make the profile equally irrelevant?
replies(1): >>eloran+Mo
◧◩◪
23. hedora+Nf[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:44:32
>>colept+mb
If google bans legitimate publishers, then the advertisers move elsewhere.

Also, increased click fraud on tracking ads lowers their attractiveness, nudging ad revenue toward sites that serve display ads targeted to their content.

This helps funnel money to sites that produce high quality content and away from low quality sites that happen to attract users that view high quality content elsewhere.

◧◩◪
24. malka+5h[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:51:36
>>colept+mb
and when networks have no publishers left, what do happen to them ?
replies(1): >>colept+xh
◧◩◪◨
25. colept+xh[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:53:06
>>malka+5h
> no publishers left

They become the publisher. In the grand scheme, this is a misguided effort that will further monopolize publishing.

replies(1): >>type0+Hl1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
26. dpark+jj[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 17:00:43
>>notaha+Le
I vividly remember being unable to find anything useful in the first half-dozen pages on Lycos and Altavista and Yahoo and all the others, which is why Google took the entire market when they showed up with PageRank.
◧◩◪
27. ameliu+4k[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 17:05:34
>>blaudi+d4
> [...] because users are notoriously reluctant to pay for virtual goods

Perhaps the reason for this is that virtual goods have often been for free, because of ads (?)

◧◩◪
28. ben0x5+Vk[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 17:09:52
>>tyingq+r1
It's precisely only messing with metrics, it just so happens that one of the metrics happens to be the one you agreed to use as basis for your payments. ;)
◧◩◪
29. eloran+Mo[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 17:28:47
>>openas+Gf
Yes and no. If you don’t click on ads you make advertising irrelevant but they’ll still keep collecting data on your behavior. Sure in the long run if everyone stopped clicking on ads it would be game over for the whole advertising industry. But in the meantime we can wreck havoc on their tactics.
◧◩◪
30. jlaroc+Wv[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 18:08:31
>>blaudi+d4
I strongly disagree, and feel the overall utility and usability of the internet has been negatively affected by advertisements.

Companies that can't survive by selling a product or service directly probably should go out of business, IMO.

replies(1): >>Viking+UJ
◧◩◪◨⬒
31. godsha+uH[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 19:11:24
>>dpark+a8
I am in the process of switching everything over to fastmail, which is a paid email service without ads, because I dislike the current state of the advertising industry so much. Plus, I'm now in a financial relationship where I am the customer, not the product.

I might likely do the same for a search page if such a thing existed and the price was right. Until then I use startpage or duckduckgo to (attempt to) retain some anonymity.

◧◩
32. Viking+xJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 19:25:22
>>iUsedT+R
...because you want the sites that use ads to all go paywall?
◧◩◪◨
33. Viking+UJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 19:27:45
>>jlaroc+Wv
You get that companies that sell a product or service ALSO show advertisements too, don't you?
◧◩◪◨
34. Viking+fK[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 19:29:55
>>_ofdw+F5
So you're taking all of those services away from other people.
replies(1): >>na85+tN1
◧◩◪◨
35. Viking+QK[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 19:33:26
>>Aldo_M+T4
You just said, "The sites I visit don't mind receiving money for disruptive, intrusive, battery-draining, bandwidth-consuming, rich-media advertisements, so I don't mind draining their wallets."

If there's someone who makes content you like to see, why don't you mind draining their wallet?

replies(1): >>Aldo_M+ZL
◧◩◪◨⬒
36. Aldo_M+ZL[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 19:42:37
>>Viking+QK
If there's someone who makes content I like to see, I purchase their merchandising, books, courses, assist to their events, etc., that's pretty simple.

Why support the middle man who just makes the Internet a worse place when you can directly support an author's efforts?

The advertisement business model just exists to justify the existence of low quality content.

replies(1): >>Viking+kD7
◧◩◪◨⬒
37. type0+Hl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-06 00:30:55
>>colept+xh
So what will they publish then, fake news?
◧◩◪◨⬒
38. _ofdw+lN1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-06 07:30:05
>>flower+se
Ignoring your false equivalence:

If you already want something, then the ads are useless because the entire point of an ad is to manipulate me into buying something I didn't want to buy.

If I want to buy the book already because I am interested in the author's books then the books sell themselves without need for ads.

◧◩◪◨⬒
39. na85+tN1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-06 07:31:55
>>Viking+fK
So, I have to waste my mobile bandwidth on ads because you want free email?
replies(1): >>Viking+WI7
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
40. Viking+kD7[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-09 15:31:57
>>Aldo_M+ZL
Yeah? When was the last time you purchased a music video?

Okay, when was the last time you watched one?

You want to stand by that argument, or admit that you're talking out your butt?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
41. Viking+WI7[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-09 16:10:03
>>na85+tN1
I see ads in my gmail. How exactly does that force you to see ads on your mobile bandwidth?
[go to top]