zlacker

[parent] [thread] 11 comments
1. tetrep+(OP)[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:15:08
The idea is to mess with advertisers' metrics. If people using ad blockers are peaceful protesters, AdNauseam is trying to riot.
replies(2): >>tyingq+W >>colept+Ra
2. tyingq+W[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:21:14
>>tetrep+(OP)
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+o4 >>ben0x5+qk
◧◩
3. Aldo_M+o4[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 15:41:14
>>tyingq+W
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+lK
4. colept+Ra[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:19:54
>>tetrep+(OP)
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+if >>malka+Ag
◧◩
5. hedora+if[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:44:32
>>colept+Ra
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.

◧◩
6. malka+Ag[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:51:36
>>colept+Ra
and when networks have no publishers left, what do happen to them ?
replies(1): >>colept+2h
◧◩◪
7. colept+2h[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 16:53:06
>>malka+Ag
> no publishers left

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

replies(1): >>type0+cl1
◧◩
8. ben0x5+qk[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 17:09:52
>>tyingq+W
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. ;)
◧◩◪
9. Viking+lK[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 19:33:26
>>Aldo_M+o4
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+uL
◧◩◪◨
10. Aldo_M+uL[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 19:42:37
>>Viking+lK
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+PC7
◧◩◪◨
11. type0+cl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-06 00:30:55
>>colept+2h
So what will they publish then, fake news?
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. Viking+PC7[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-09 15:31:57
>>Aldo_M+uL
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?

[go to top]