3 ms·

But, can it go too far in the other direction? Can ads be abusive or is anything a content publisher does to monetize fair game? For instance, apps that use da

• kazinator 11y ago
  > apps that ... An app is not analogous to a junk page with no useful content. You installed and use it repeatedly in spite of the ads because it provides some sort of benefit. Any app which contains a clickable element which leads to malware infestation, or shows children inappropriate content, is malware. Regardless of whether that button is on an ad or elsewhere, and regardless of whether it is contrived to make it easy to press by "accident" or not. An ad that constantly interposes itself to be clicked by accident is merely annoying, and probably counterproductive (users will give the program a bad rating). To annoyed users, I would say "don't use the app". To malware purveyors, I'd ideally like to say, "3 to 5 years".
  • unclebucknasty 11y ago
    Junk pages with no useful content do not tend to survive, hence that is not a valid comparison. Just as you "install and use repeatedly" apps that are useful, you only revisit pages that are useful. So, the relevant analogy is between a page of some value and an app of some value. If ads weren't a problem on pages that fit this description, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Annoyance is annoyance in any context, even if it stops short of outright malice.