zlacker

You're not clicking the button, you're sending a known fraudulent request saying the ad was clicked, when the ad was not clicked

>>direwo+(OP)
I still wonder about that. I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't. The website operator does have such a contract and so cannot hire a bot farm to spam click the ads.

If it's something that's been held up in court already then of course I have to accept it, but I can't say the reason seems immediately intuitive.

>>sharpe+y1
>I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't.

Charges of fraud doesn't require a contract to be in place. That's the whole point of criminal law, it's so that you don't need to add a "don't screw me over" clause to every interaction you make.

>>gruez+U1
How is that a fraud, when I don't get any money from the scheme?

>>sharpe+y1
There's a very general law that says something about using a computer to cause money to move

>>genera+9b
Gaining something isn't required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Civil_fraud

>>direwo+(OP)
An AI agent did it. Obviously I can't be expected to watch over all the things it does.

>>gruez+Pg1
By this logic, vandalism would be fraud too.

>>genera+OL1
Vandalism involves making material misrepresentations?

>>gruez+mX1
Damaging property cost money to fix.

>>genera+As4
Where's the misrepresentation?

>>direwo+695
Where is the misrepresentation in clicking on links?