4 ms·

> you’d see ads on sites like Wikipedia or Target.com Normally we call that vandalism. They should be facing criminal charges, not civil lawsuits and pressure

by pdkl95 10y ago

> you’d see ads on sites like Wikipedia or Target.com Normally we call that vandalism. They should be facing criminal charges, not civil lawsuits and pressure from Google.

ikeboy 10y ago
There's no case afaik, because they disclose everything in the original agreement when you install their software. Unethical, sure, but there's little the law can do to prevent people from agreeing to such things. Maybe a requirement for certain disclosures to be made more prominent (like for cigarettes)?
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > there's little the law can do to prevent people from agreeing to such things. True, iff the customer was adequately informed about the offer in a way most people will understand. Contracts are not supposed to be a "gotcha" with extra terms buried in the fine print. If the installer only featured the "bait" and mentioned the adware behind a dark pattern UI or deep in the text of the contract, a judge could (and should) void that part of the contract. > Maybe a requirement for certain disclosures to be made more prominent At a minimum. That said, the issue isn't really with the person that installs the software. There isn't a contract between the adware scammers and e.g. Target or Wikipedia.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    >a judge could (and should) void that part of the contract. There's a difference between voiding a contract that no longer obligates people, and voiding a contract to make actions taken under it illegal. I'm not sure there's good precedent for the latter. >There isn't a contract between the adware scammers and e.g. Target or Wikipedia. They're not touching Wikipedia, they're running on the user's computer and manipulating their local served page of Wikipedia. I don't see why anyone else would have a case.
    - spacecowboy_lon 10y ago
      Anny illegal terms in a contract are void.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        The argument isn't that it's illegal, but that it wasn't properly agreed to.
- unsavory 10y ago
  It would be an interesting case if someone tried this with the venerable TV industry: rent/borrow/buy our special HDMI cable/tuner, let us replace your ads, and we'll pay half your cable bill if you let us put our ads up instead. Methinks the broadcasters would pounce down like a ton of bricks and their lawyers would use every loose corner of the law to bury you perpetually `a la Aereo.`
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Is this replacing ads, or just adding more? Even if it is replacing ads, to argue that it's illegal seems to require saying that ad blocking is illegal (adblock plus has been sued for this, but so far not successfully). Also https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/ uses basically the same technique.
  - schoen 10y ago
    I have this vague recollection that friends whose families subscribed to HBO in the 1980s said they didn't show ads at all, because subscribers were directly paying for the programming through their subscriptions (whereas free-to-air stations felt they had to run ads because viewer weren't paying directly). Was this actually true? Does anyone else have a similar recollection? I'm just wondering if there was a particular moment when people's intuitions about where you could expect to see ads on television changed.
    - BrandonM 10y ago
      AFAIK this is still true of HBO.

by pdkl95 10y ago

> you’d see ads on sites like Wikipedia or Target.com Normally we call that vandalism. They should be facing criminal charges, not civil lawsuits and pressure from Google.

ikeboy 10y ago

There's no case afaik, because they disclose everything in the original agreement when you install their software. Unethical, sure, but there's little the law can do to prevent people from agreeing to such things. Maybe a requirement for certain disclosures to be made more prominent (like for cigarettes)?

pdkl95 10y ago
> there's little the law can do to prevent people from agreeing to such things. True, iff the customer was adequately informed about the offer in a way most people will understand. Contracts are not supposed to be a "gotcha" with extra terms buried in the fine print. If the installer only featured the "bait" and mentioned the adware behind a dark pattern UI or deep in the text of the contract, a judge could (and should) void that part of the contract. > Maybe a requirement for certain disclosures to be made more prominent At a minimum. That said, the issue isn't really with the person that installs the software. There isn't a contract between the adware scammers and e.g. Target or Wikipedia.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  >a judge could (and should) void that part of the contract. There's a difference between voiding a contract that no longer obligates people, and voiding a contract to make actions taken under it illegal. I'm not sure there's good precedent for the latter. >There isn't a contract between the adware scammers and e.g. Target or Wikipedia. They're not touching Wikipedia, they're running on the user's computer and manipulating their local served page of Wikipedia. I don't see why anyone else would have a case.
  - spacecowboy_lon 10y ago
    Anny illegal terms in a contract are void.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      The argument isn't that it's illegal, but that it wasn't properly agreed to.
unsavory 10y ago
It would be an interesting case if someone tried this with the venerable TV industry: rent/borrow/buy our special HDMI cable/tuner, let us replace your ads, and we'll pay half your cable bill if you let us put our ads up instead. Methinks the broadcasters would pounce down like a ton of bricks and their lawyers would use every loose corner of the law to bury you perpetually `a la Aereo.`
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Is this replacing ads, or just adding more? Even if it is replacing ads, to argue that it's illegal seems to require saying that ad blocking is illegal (adblock plus has been sued for this, but so far not successfully). Also https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/ uses basically the same technique.
- schoen 10y ago
  I have this vague recollection that friends whose families subscribed to HBO in the 1980s said they didn't show ads at all, because subscribers were directly paying for the programming through their subscriptions (whereas free-to-air stations felt they had to run ads because viewer weren't paying directly). Was this actually true? Does anyone else have a similar recollection? I'm just wondering if there was a particular moment when people's intuitions about where you could expect to see ads on television changed.
  - BrandonM 10y ago
    AFAIK this is still true of HBO.