zlacker

Yes? I'm honestly not sure how you could think otherwise. This is a clickbot just like any other.

>>Analem+(OP)
Who is the user defrauding? If they're not the site running the ads, they have no business relationship with the ad company, so the ad company really can't reasonably demand of them to only click certain ads.

>>Analem+(OP)
It's arguable. Fraud generally requires intent to result in financial or personal gain. There's no gain here for the user. There's gain for the advertising company at the expense of the company purchasing the advertisements.

But the advertising company is supposed to well-qualify their targets, right? It's on them for serving and charging for advertisements to people who don't want them or will 'click them' regardless of content.

>>ben0x5+M3
Yes, you don't sign any agreement to see or click on ads. Clicking them is in no way fraudulent, just standard behavior.

>>Analem+(OP)
I'm pretty sure that, in the USA, choosing to click ads would be protected under the first amendment.

>>heropr+74
There is gain for the user, in the respect that they receive the service of their privacy being protected

>>Analem+(OP)
I often click ads with no intention of buying... just to redistribute money around to Google and website owners.

>>Analem+(OP)
In te Netherlands, we have stickers that we cab place on our real-life mailboxes: "No ads. No unspecified recipient." The advertisers (mailmen) are not allowed to ignore this sticker.

Am I stealing money from advertisers?

There is no such rule for online adverts. So what is a parent to do?

By blocking them and obfuscating through clicking I am protecting my own sanity, and that of my children. This is my "No/No" sticker.

>>heropr+74
I'm not a lawyer, but according to this definition the fraud perpetrator need not gain, only cause injury to the fraud victim:

"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

>>mring3+o6
You'd be wrong. Many people, even Americans, don't really understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean you can do and say anything you want regardless of the context or consequences.

>>mring3+o6
Has a US government agency tried to stop anyone clicking ads?

>>hsod+dp
If we take that definition, what is misleading? Users are presented with something asking them to click and then they just automate the clicking. They aren't attempting deceit through their actions.

Now, if the advertiser knows that people are clicking things through a script, and has some clause with their agreement with the company that says 'We won't charge you when this happens' but charges them anyway, that would be deceit. But it'd be on the part of the advertiser to the company buying the advertisements.

>>_euvw+Vl
> In te Netherlands, we have stickers that we cab place on our real-life mailboxes: "No ads. No unspecified recipient." The advertisers (mailmen) are not allowed to ignore this sticker.

Wow, that's actually kind of amazing. I wish we had that in the US...

>>ggggte+Oy
I suspect the comment is a frustrated response to American courts declaring that all kinds of weird things are somehow protected as "speech", not an unironic endorsement of the practice.

>>heropr+bz
> They aren't attempting deceit through their actions.

You don't think so? Isn't the whole point of this extension to try and trick advertisers into paying for non-existent user engagement?

>>saghm+0C
I have such sticker but not anyone is actually following that. It helps to shout at ad mailmen sometimes when I notice them. I'm much more irritated over political junk mail.

>>type0+i21
You could call the Advertisement Code Commission. See: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/bescherming-van-con...

>>type0+i21
Sorry for my lack of knowledge about this, but are "ad mailmen" a specific thing in the Netherlands? In the U.S., junk ads just come in the regular mail.

>>saghm+v71
If it is like in France (we have the same regulations) then you have two kind of junk mail :the one addressed to you (because they have your mail status, supposedly because you have it to them and agreed to get mail spam) and anonymous one (from supermarkets for instance, with their promotions or sales) which are delivered by someone payed by them. The stickers work for the latter (which is maybe 70% of the volume)

>>hsod+PN
But the user never makes any kind of claim or promise that their advert clicking represents real user engagement.

It's up to the advertiser to accurately classify user behaviour, and the user has no responsibility to make that easy for them.