6 ms·

AdNauseam Browser Extension: Clicking Ads So You Don't Have To

98 points by tshtf 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago
The source is here: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam This actively poisons the advertiser/publisher relationship, which in my opinion is a much harder stance than simply blocking ads. edit: I've tried it using the abp/adnauseam combo but it only worked on one out of 5 heavily ad laden pages. It's funny, I have so many layers of this stuff running that it took me quite a while before I managed to see any ads at all and then to re-enable just ABP. So, on FF at least, not really recommended by me, maybe someone else has a different experience. (tried it on two different machines)
- layble 11y ago
  By poisoning the advertiser/publisher relationship they are also poisoning the publisher/user relationship. Like it or not publishers have to pay the bills and these types of efforts are either going to result in paywalls (which users of this plugin will no doubt try to circumvent) or by the content going away all together. I think a much better option for those opposed to advertising is to just not visit those publishers. Anything other than that strikes me as theft of service.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > Anything other than that strikes me as theft of service. How so? Theft of service requires a couple of other bits to flip in my view, after all, you're not actually required to view the ads on webpages when they're there, you're not required to click and you're not required to buy any products. It's no more theft of service than zapping to another channel when there are ads on the TV or switching off the radio when advertising starts.
    - DougN7 11y ago
      Excepts adds are often sold on a cost-per-click basis so you are causing a transaction with the advertiser for which they got nothing (no visit to their website to at least consider their wares for a few seconds).
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        But that's not what the GGP said, he said that "anything other that not visiting those sites is theft of services", that is definitely not limited to false clicking ads, but it also includes simple ad blocking.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Except why whould I care? The rules of transaction between the advertiser and the website owner are their business, in which I have no say except being its victim (er, resource), so why should I cater to their needs? I get appeals to decency, but it definitely does not warrant calling it "theft of service" or "fraud".
  - highace 11y ago
    I'd be totally cool with a paywall instead of slow and distracting ads. Here's an idea - why don't a bunch of publishers (or a third party) get together and build a subscription service for a reasonable monthly fee that automatically gets me through their paywall when I visit their sites. In theory it would be open for any publisher to join, and they get to split my monthly fee based on pageviews.
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      It would be 10 or 100 such subscriptions to various "networks" of sites, and in the end these micropayment-networks would live more from selling the visitors' behaviour patterns than from the fees themselves (just like ad networks are in the bulk information collection business). The solution imho is a good micropayment system where I can choose to view a page for $.01 or view it for free with ads.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I personally wouldn't mind. They could track me all day long (except why would they - they aren't doing ads any more) as long as the Internet gets free of the shit that's eating everyone's bandwidth, battery power, CPU cycles and sanity.
        sparkzilla 11y ago
        If your sanity is so easily upset by advertising, I suggest you get off the internet, and avoid TV, radio and print altogether.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I avoid TV, radio and print already. But why should I get off the Internet when I can just use an ad blocker?
        jacquesm 11y ago
        Being on the internet or not is no longer optional. In lots of places governments now require that you communicate with them via their website, it's the way people stay in touch with each other (and you'll be left out if you don't) and it is the way companies do business, hire people and communicate between each other. Advertising is not an essential part of the internet, but everything else is. Remember: the internet was doing just fine before advertising rolled along.
- michaelt 11y ago
  I was under the impression there is already widespread automated ad clicking [1] - if that's the case perhaps this merely makes public a problem that advertisers have known about in private for ages. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud
  - jhenkens 11y ago
    Click fraud hasn't been a user choice thus far.
rattray 11y ago
This looks interesting. I personally think the anti-tracking brouhaha is overblown and don't mind if "corporations" send me fewer irrelevant ads thanks to tracking. But for those militantly opposed, this seems like a clever way to fight back.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  What happens is first you get "relevant ads". Then you get a different price of the book on Amazon than I do, because you discussed buying it in a "private" chat on FB with a friend. Next you visit an airline website and you get a higher fare becuase of the knowledge that you have already booked a hotel in that city so they know what day you have to travel. What part of that do you believe is already here, and what part is dystopian future? I'm against the whole idea of information as a commodity, and the ad business today is just that: it's customer information as a bulk commodity. I don't mind being shown ads I just don't want my information collected and used. You could argue that website owners actually give me something (the content) and want something in return (a payment or an ad impression), but I disagree with how the transaction takes place without my knowledge. Just use static image ads served from your domain, then my browser can't know it's an ad. It will be a "dumb" ad, but those have worked in magazines and bus stops since forever.
  - commentzorro 11y ago
    I hear you. You click on an ad because you might be interested in a trip and now you're penalized all over the web because you actually showed some interest in an ad?!
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      Worse, you'll be penalized because your mom clicked an ad, and they know you are related, for example.
pinkunicorn 11y ago
Well this is amazing! I honestly think if a majority of people start using this, Click Fraud will eventual become indistinguishable from clicks made my AdNauseam and ad companies for once will worry about milking the ad-cow. But then... I know this will die in someway or the other.
- eva1984 11y ago
  This won't have the push as ad-blockers, it doesn't have explicit benefits on the user side while sabotage the publishers. So it will be very hard to sell.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Another weak point is that it does end up loading the ads which would slow down the connection and it confirms the pages you've seen to the networks increasing the amount of tracking done.
- cinooo 11y ago
  If there was actually a significant percentage of browsers that had this installed then it would ultimately affect the actual business model of ad sales. It would be really interesting to see what they could possibly come up with if CPC was no longer usable.
a3n 11y ago
Maybe I misunderstand. Although it's nice not to load and see ads, and it's really nice not to be tracked and correlated, it's really really nice for an advertiser not to be aware of me personally, at all, correlated or not. So this thing poisons the stream, but it also says "there's a person here, put him in the database." It's like responding to spam; there's no future in it. I don't mind advertising at all, and when I used to read physical magazines and papers, none of the ads bothered me, I'd either look at them, ignore them, or throw away a whole section if that's all it was. It's tracking ads, and the ad networks more generally, that I object to. If a site just sold and showed static ads, with no information about me personally sold to or detected by the ad buyer, I'd be among the first to whitelist such a site. Until then ... fuck off. EDIT: Actually I guess there'd be no need for whitelisting, the ad would just show up with the editorial content. So, Wired, when you whine at me for using a blocker, why not instead just show me a picture of Suntory? http://whiskey.wikia.com/wiki/Bill_Murray_and_Suntory http://whiskey.wikia.com/wiki/Bill_Murray_and_Suntory
- caractacus 11y ago
  Quite. What does it matter to an advertiser selling cars if I also indicate that I like holidays to El Salvador, Dove washing liquid, and videos about giraffes? They will still think that I want to buy a car.
  - a3n 11y ago
    Apparently it matters a lot, because they pay for that information.
  - feelix 11y ago
    It'll make no difference if you do it. If say 30% of people do it, then it'll make their databases of who clicked on what quite worthless. Unfortunately I don't see it reaching critical mass without providing some direct benefit to the user.
joosters 11y ago
What a waste. If you can detect the ads and trackers, just block them instead. Besides which, their claim that 'targeting and surveillance becomes futile' is untrue. You're still letting all the ad networks and trackers watch every web site you visit.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's not a waste, and not everyone cares primarily about trackers. Some find ads a problem, and this is one possible approach to reduce that problem at the source.
  - joosters 11y ago
    Sure, not everyone cares about trackers. But the people who might care are being misled by the lies on the web page.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Fair enough. Their point, presumably, is that with enough noise tracking becomes pointless, but I see how this extension doesn't really generate tracking noise, only buying-preference noise.
jsonne 11y ago
I would be very careful with this. It may constitute fraud.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  How so?
  - jsonne 11y ago
    If a publisher was to use this to click their own ads, it would be fraudulent clicks. If they're charging on a cpc basis it would be defrauding the advertiser.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Ah, you mean the instance where a publisher would install this plug-in. I see, well that would be supremely dumb of such a publisher, but I don't think this plug-in is aimed at publishers to commit click-fraud. I thought you meant fraud on behalf of an ordinary user, your comment made no mention of publishers.
      - jsonne 11y ago
        Well I mean in addition, if you work for a competitors company, if you yourself are an advertiser in any capacity etc. There's many scenarios where you could find yourself in trouble.
    - Mz 11y ago
      So, make sure you don't use it when viewing your own sites. Not saying I approve, but it is illegal for me to click my own ads already. At best, this is a "proviso" that should be put out, of "Hey, if you are using this AND a publisher who is also trying to make money on ads, be mindful of this issue." Though I have some trouble wrapping my brain around someone both trying to support their own work with ads while also using a product like Ad Nauseum. However, hey, serial killers also exist and I can't wrap my brain around their twisted shit either. (shrug)
Mz 11y ago
As someone who runs a number of blogs, I have been following the "adblocker wars" with interest. Here is my opinion on a not malicious alternative for publishers looking to monetize: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/surviving-and-thriving-amidst-adblocker.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/surviving-an... http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-to-make-paypal-tip-jar.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-to-make-... I will suggest you promote that idea if you really want to see fewer ads and not have to debate (internally) the morality of whatever of poisoning the stream, etc. I think it is a payment model that can work. Your readers need to value what you offer, but, ideally, they should be there for that reason anyway.
bloat 11y ago
"The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe." Douglas Adams
sparkzilla 11y ago
Why is Hacker News encouraging a project that aims to defraud advertisers and websites? It's hard enough to run an ad-based business without having to deal with getting blocked by Google from fraudulent clicks. If you don't like ads, the solution is simple -- don't go to sites that have them.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's not Hacker News (site) encouraging a project, it's users of Hacker News. Also, I don't see how this is defrauding (in legal sense), it's just shoving shitty behaviour back at the source. Also, even if you don't like it, it's still more ethical than what Uber is doing, so I think it should be encouraged at least as much in the tech world. ;).
  - sparkzilla 11y ago
    Because Uber, a company in a completely unrelated field, is engaging in what you see as unethical behavior does not give you the right to defraud other companies of any kind. It's fraud because it aims to register false clicks to deceive and confuse the companies that provide ads. It causes trouble for website owners, who can easily lose their entire income stream because they will be banned if the amount of false clicks on their site is deemed to be too high. If you don't like ads, don't go to sites that have them.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Uber is related here because you asked about HN (site or community) supporting something, and Uber is one of the most popular startups in the tech crowd. I further conclude that if said crowd doesn't seem to mind Uber's behaviour then it definitely shouldn't mind this extension, because it also provides value to users and, as opposed to Uber, is not actually illegal. But let's drop that, it was just me being snarky in the morning. It's not a fraud, no matter how advertisers want to call it. It wouldn't fly in court. You serve me some buttons, I click them. I haven't signed any document, implicitly or explicitly, between me and ad network that would oblige me to view or click their buttons in a way they want it to. So let's not use strong words where they don't belong. Yes, it aims to register false clicks to deceive and confuse the companies that provide ads - because those companies give negative utility to users an it's in everyone's personal interest to get rid of them. It's tracking, it's spreading malware, but it's also simply shoving ugly shit in users' face. We have a right to strike back. > It causes trouble for website owners, who can easily lose their entire income stream because they will be banned if the amount of false clicks on their site is deemed to be too high. I say, good riddance. Site quality and trustworthiness is anti-correlated with ad count anyway. > If you don't like ads, don't go to sites that have them. No. If you don't like people not viewing your ads, paywall. Oh, but your paywall has to be leaky or else Google goes away? Well, welcome to the Internet. It was supposed to be a medium of information exchange, not a shopping mall.
jonknee 11y ago
Fraud As A Service.
_ak 11y ago
Are you people really that naive? Any decent adtech company will detect this as click fraud and filter it. This does nothing but waste computing and network resources for everyone.
- SolarNet 11y ago
  Oh, so it only DDoS the ad networks who aren't adhering to No Tracking standards. Alright.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Ad companies have no qualms wasting our computing and network resources.
thinkloop 11y ago
When you install an ad blocking browser extension, you are trading limited, specific, mostly non-personal data sharing with publishers, for complete, unrestricted, uncensored data sharing with extension providers. Extensions can see the entirety of every page a user visits. This includes their bank account, what they searched on google, what they searched on duck-duck-go when they didn't want their search to be recorded, what sites they are a member of, how frequently they visit those sites, at what times they visit those sites, what emails they have sent and received, what they typed in their encrypted proton-mail account, what 20 word passphrase they chose for their bitcoin wallet, what they posted anonymously on 4chan... From a pure privacy perspective, it's a huge net loss. Even if you only enable extensions on non-sensitive sites, the difference in the amount of data being given to the extension provider vs the data being restricted from the ad provider, is very large during that time.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Except that those extension providers don't as a rule upload that data to their server without authorization in the form of an opt-out process.
- jsjohnst 11y ago
  This has been my thought too for a long time. Who's watching the watcher so to speak.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Well the standard blocking software is open source, simple and controversial. Controversial open source software gets checked by lots of people and because it is simple issues would get flagged.
    - jsjohnst 11y ago
      Had you not added "simple", I'd have had a strong case in point with OpenSSL. OpenSSL has always been at least a bit controversial (i.e., breaking binary compatibility on not just a patch release aka x.y.Z, but a semantic level even lower) and issues have still gone undetected for a long time.
soared 11y ago
This will only help advertisers. If a large group of users click ads and bounce immediately it will be obvious they are using this service. Send them a fake ad, see it they click. If they do, don't count/charge for their clicks anymore. Now Google has effectively found everyone who don't convert with ads, and doesn't target them. This makes normal ads more targeted, increases conversions rates, increases ctrs, and lets Google charge advertiser more.

98 points by tshtf 11y ago

The source is here: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam This actively poisons the advertiser/publisher relationship, which in my opinion is a much harder stance than simply blocking ads. edit: I've tried it using the abp/adnauseam combo but it only worked on one out of 5 heavily ad laden pages. It's funny, I have so many layers of this stuff running that it took me quite a while before I managed to see any ads at all and then to re-enable just ABP. So, on FF at least, not really recommended by me, maybe someone else has a different experience. (tried it on two different machines)

layble 11y ago
By poisoning the advertiser/publisher relationship they are also poisoning the publisher/user relationship. Like it or not publishers have to pay the bills and these types of efforts are either going to result in paywalls (which users of this plugin will no doubt try to circumvent) or by the content going away all together. I think a much better option for those opposed to advertising is to just not visit those publishers. Anything other than that strikes me as theft of service.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > Anything other than that strikes me as theft of service. How so? Theft of service requires a couple of other bits to flip in my view, after all, you're not actually required to view the ads on webpages when they're there, you're not required to click and you're not required to buy any products. It's no more theft of service than zapping to another channel when there are ads on the TV or switching off the radio when advertising starts.
  - DougN7 11y ago
    Excepts adds are often sold on a cost-per-click basis so you are causing a transaction with the advertiser for which they got nothing (no visit to their website to at least consider their wares for a few seconds).
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      But that's not what the GGP said, he said that "anything other that not visiting those sites is theft of services", that is definitely not limited to false clicking ads, but it also includes simple ad blocking.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Except why whould I care? The rules of transaction between the advertiser and the website owner are their business, in which I have no say except being its victim (er, resource), so why should I cater to their needs? I get appeals to decency, but it definitely does not warrant calling it "theft of service" or "fraud".
- highace 11y ago
  I'd be totally cool with a paywall instead of slow and distracting ads. Here's an idea - why don't a bunch of publishers (or a third party) get together and build a subscription service for a reasonable monthly fee that automatically gets me through their paywall when I visit their sites. In theory it would be open for any publisher to join, and they get to split my monthly fee based on pageviews.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    It would be 10 or 100 such subscriptions to various "networks" of sites, and in the end these micropayment-networks would live more from selling the visitors' behaviour patterns than from the fees themselves (just like ad networks are in the bulk information collection business). The solution imho is a good micropayment system where I can choose to view a page for $.01 or view it for free with ads.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I personally wouldn't mind. They could track me all day long (except why would they - they aren't doing ads any more) as long as the Internet gets free of the shit that's eating everyone's bandwidth, battery power, CPU cycles and sanity.
      - sparkzilla 11y ago
        If your sanity is so easily upset by advertising, I suggest you get off the internet, and avoid TV, radio and print altogether.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I avoid TV, radio and print already. But why should I get off the Internet when I can just use an ad blocker?
        jacquesm 11y ago
        Being on the internet or not is no longer optional. In lots of places governments now require that you communicate with them via their website, it's the way people stay in touch with each other (and you'll be left out if you don't) and it is the way companies do business, hire people and communicate between each other. Advertising is not an essential part of the internet, but everything else is. Remember: the internet was doing just fine before advertising rolled along.
michaelt 11y ago
I was under the impression there is already widespread automated ad clicking [1] - if that's the case perhaps this merely makes public a problem that advertisers have known about in private for ages. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud
- jhenkens 11y ago
  Click fraud hasn't been a user choice thus far.

rattray 11y ago

This looks interesting. I personally think the anti-tracking brouhaha is overblown and don't mind if "corporations" send me fewer irrelevant ads thanks to tracking. But for those militantly opposed, this seems like a clever way to fight back.

alkonaut 11y ago
What happens is first you get "relevant ads". Then you get a different price of the book on Amazon than I do, because you discussed buying it in a "private" chat on FB with a friend. Next you visit an airline website and you get a higher fare becuase of the knowledge that you have already booked a hotel in that city so they know what day you have to travel. What part of that do you believe is already here, and what part is dystopian future? I'm against the whole idea of information as a commodity, and the ad business today is just that: it's customer information as a bulk commodity. I don't mind being shown ads I just don't want my information collected and used. You could argue that website owners actually give me something (the content) and want something in return (a payment or an ad impression), but I disagree with how the transaction takes place without my knowledge. Just use static image ads served from your domain, then my browser can't know it's an ad. It will be a "dumb" ad, but those have worked in magazines and bus stops since forever.
- commentzorro 11y ago
  I hear you. You click on an ad because you might be interested in a trip and now you're penalized all over the web because you actually showed some interest in an ad?!
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    Worse, you'll be penalized because your mom clicked an ad, and they know you are related, for example.

pinkunicorn 11y ago

Well this is amazing! I honestly think if a majority of people start using this, Click Fraud will eventual become indistinguishable from clicks made my AdNauseam and ad companies for once will worry about milking the ad-cow. But then... I know this will die in someway or the other.

eva1984 11y ago
This won't have the push as ad-blockers, it doesn't have explicit benefits on the user side while sabotage the publishers. So it will be very hard to sell.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Another weak point is that it does end up loading the ads which would slow down the connection and it confirms the pages you've seen to the networks increasing the amount of tracking done.
cinooo 11y ago
If there was actually a significant percentage of browsers that had this installed then it would ultimately affect the actual business model of ad sales. It would be really interesting to see what they could possibly come up with if CPC was no longer usable.

a3n 11y ago

Maybe I misunderstand. Although it's nice not to load and see ads, and it's really nice not to be tracked and correlated, it's really really nice for an advertiser not to be aware of me personally, at all, correlated or not. So this thing poisons the stream, but it also says "there's a person here, put him in the database." It's like responding to spam; there's no future in it. I don't mind advertising at all, and when I used to read physical magazines and papers, none of the ads bothered me, I'd either look at them, ignore them, or throw away a whole section if that's all it was. It's tracking ads, and the ad networks more generally, that I object to. If a site just sold and showed static ads, with no information about me personally sold to or detected by the ad buyer, I'd be among the first to whitelist such a site. Until then ... fuck off. EDIT: Actually I guess there'd be no need for whitelisting, the ad would just show up with the editorial content. So, Wired, when you whine at me for using a blocker, why not instead just show me a picture of Suntory? http://whiskey.wikia.com/wiki/Bill_Murray_and_Suntory http://whiskey.wikia.com/wiki/Bill_Murray_and_Suntory

caractacus 11y ago
Quite. What does it matter to an advertiser selling cars if I also indicate that I like holidays to El Salvador, Dove washing liquid, and videos about giraffes? They will still think that I want to buy a car.
- a3n 11y ago
  Apparently it matters a lot, because they pay for that information.
- feelix 11y ago
  It'll make no difference if you do it. If say 30% of people do it, then it'll make their databases of who clicked on what quite worthless. Unfortunately I don't see it reaching critical mass without providing some direct benefit to the user.

joosters 11y ago

What a waste. If you can detect the ads and trackers, just block them instead. Besides which, their claim that 'targeting and surveillance becomes futile' is untrue. You're still letting all the ad networks and trackers watch every web site you visit.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
It's not a waste, and not everyone cares primarily about trackers. Some find ads a problem, and this is one possible approach to reduce that problem at the source.
- joosters 11y ago
  Sure, not everyone cares about trackers. But the people who might care are being misled by the lies on the web page.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Fair enough. Their point, presumably, is that with enough noise tracking becomes pointless, but I see how this extension doesn't really generate tracking noise, only buying-preference noise.

jsonne 11y ago

I would be very careful with this. It may constitute fraud.

jacquesm 11y ago
How so?
- jsonne 11y ago
  If a publisher was to use this to click their own ads, it would be fraudulent clicks. If they're charging on a cpc basis it would be defrauding the advertiser.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Ah, you mean the instance where a publisher would install this plug-in. I see, well that would be supremely dumb of such a publisher, but I don't think this plug-in is aimed at publishers to commit click-fraud. I thought you meant fraud on behalf of an ordinary user, your comment made no mention of publishers.
    - jsonne 11y ago
      Well I mean in addition, if you work for a competitors company, if you yourself are an advertiser in any capacity etc. There's many scenarios where you could find yourself in trouble.
  - Mz 11y ago
    So, make sure you don't use it when viewing your own sites. Not saying I approve, but it is illegal for me to click my own ads already. At best, this is a "proviso" that should be put out, of "Hey, if you are using this AND a publisher who is also trying to make money on ads, be mindful of this issue." Though I have some trouble wrapping my brain around someone both trying to support their own work with ads while also using a product like Ad Nauseum. However, hey, serial killers also exist and I can't wrap my brain around their twisted shit either. (shrug)

Mz 11y ago

As someone who runs a number of blogs, I have been following the "adblocker wars" with interest. Here is my opinion on a not malicious alternative for publishers looking to monetize: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/surviving-and-thriving-amidst-adblocker.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/surviving-an... http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-to-make-paypal-tip-jar.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-to-make-... I will suggest you promote that idea if you really want to see fewer ads and not have to debate (internally) the morality of whatever of poisoning the stream, etc. I think it is a payment model that can work. Your readers need to value what you offer, but, ideally, they should be there for that reason anyway.

bloat 11y ago

"The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe." Douglas Adams

sparkzilla 11y ago

Why is Hacker News encouraging a project that aims to defraud advertisers and websites? It's hard enough to run an ad-based business without having to deal with getting blocked by Google from fraudulent clicks. If you don't like ads, the solution is simple -- don't go to sites that have them.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
It's not Hacker News (site) encouraging a project, it's users of Hacker News. Also, I don't see how this is defrauding (in legal sense), it's just shoving shitty behaviour back at the source. Also, even if you don't like it, it's still more ethical than what Uber is doing, so I think it should be encouraged at least as much in the tech world. ;).
- sparkzilla 11y ago
  Because Uber, a company in a completely unrelated field, is engaging in what you see as unethical behavior does not give you the right to defraud other companies of any kind. It's fraud because it aims to register false clicks to deceive and confuse the companies that provide ads. It causes trouble for website owners, who can easily lose their entire income stream because they will be banned if the amount of false clicks on their site is deemed to be too high. If you don't like ads, don't go to sites that have them.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Uber is related here because you asked about HN (site or community) supporting something, and Uber is one of the most popular startups in the tech crowd. I further conclude that if said crowd doesn't seem to mind Uber's behaviour then it definitely shouldn't mind this extension, because it also provides value to users and, as opposed to Uber, is not actually illegal. But let's drop that, it was just me being snarky in the morning. It's not a fraud, no matter how advertisers want to call it. It wouldn't fly in court. You serve me some buttons, I click them. I haven't signed any document, implicitly or explicitly, between me and ad network that would oblige me to view or click their buttons in a way they want it to. So let's not use strong words where they don't belong. Yes, it aims to register false clicks to deceive and confuse the companies that provide ads - because those companies give negative utility to users an it's in everyone's personal interest to get rid of them. It's tracking, it's spreading malware, but it's also simply shoving ugly shit in users' face. We have a right to strike back. > It causes trouble for website owners, who can easily lose their entire income stream because they will be banned if the amount of false clicks on their site is deemed to be too high. I say, good riddance. Site quality and trustworthiness is anti-correlated with ad count anyway. > If you don't like ads, don't go to sites that have them. No. If you don't like people not viewing your ads, paywall. Oh, but your paywall has to be leaky or else Google goes away? Well, welcome to the Internet. It was supposed to be a medium of information exchange, not a shopping mall.

jonknee 11y ago

Fraud As A Service.

_ak 11y ago

Are you people really that naive? Any decent adtech company will detect this as click fraud and filter it. This does nothing but waste computing and network resources for everyone.

SolarNet 11y ago
Oh, so it only DDoS the ad networks who aren't adhering to No Tracking standards. Alright.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Ad companies have no qualms wasting our computing and network resources.

thinkloop 11y ago

When you install an ad blocking browser extension, you are trading limited, specific, mostly non-personal data sharing with publishers, for complete, unrestricted, uncensored data sharing with extension providers. Extensions can see the entirety of every page a user visits. This includes their bank account, what they searched on google, what they searched on duck-duck-go when they didn't want their search to be recorded, what sites they are a member of, how frequently they visit those sites, at what times they visit those sites, what emails they have sent and received, what they typed in their encrypted proton-mail account, what 20 word passphrase they chose for their bitcoin wallet, what they posted anonymously on 4chan... From a pure privacy perspective, it's a huge net loss. Even if you only enable extensions on non-sensitive sites, the difference in the amount of data being given to the extension provider vs the data being restricted from the ad provider, is very large during that time.

jacquesm 11y ago
Except that those extension providers don't as a rule upload that data to their server without authorization in the form of an opt-out process.
jsjohnst 11y ago
This has been my thought too for a long time. Who's watching the watcher so to speak.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Well the standard blocking software is open source, simple and controversial. Controversial open source software gets checked by lots of people and because it is simple issues would get flagged.
  - jsjohnst 11y ago
    Had you not added "simple", I'd have had a strong case in point with OpenSSL. OpenSSL has always been at least a bit controversial (i.e., breaking binary compatibility on not just a patch release aka x.y.Z, but a semantic level even lower) and issues have still gone undetected for a long time.

soared 11y ago

This will only help advertisers. If a large group of users click ads and bounce immediately it will be obvious they are using this service. Send them a fake ad, see it they click. If they do, don't count/charge for their clicks anymore. Now Google has effectively found everyone who don't convert with ads, and doesn't target them. This makes normal ads more targeted, increases conversions rates, increases ctrs, and lets Google charge advertiser more.