14 ms·

At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised? AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money. Google happens to control the ext

• NoGravitas 10y ago
  According to TFA, they are also blocking manual installs and updates.
  • Spoom 10y ago
    If true, that would be a bit more disappointing. Can someone verify? Edit: Keep in mind I'm referring to developer mode installation per the link above, not directly installing the extension package from the store or a file.
    • Artemis2 10y ago
      I tried earlier today in Chrome Canary in developer mode and after a short while the extension disabled itself. When I try to enable it back again the console on the Extensions page says "Unchecked runtime.lastError while running management.setEnabled: Extension kkendhmcacabobepidajpejenjinojhp cannot be modified by user."
      • malka 10y ago
        100% assholish on google side to disable side loading for a very specific extension. The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension.
        • ashark 10y ago
          > The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension. Seriously. I'd figured they'd filter these "clicks" out easily server-side and didn't bother to install this thing, but this ban has hinted otherwise. I'll be installing it everywhere I can now.
          • nine_k 10y ago
            Why such "clicks" would be easy to filter on the server side? What distinguishes them so clearly?
            • ashark 10y ago
              Well, tons of them coming from one IP address, on seemingly every site that address visits, for one thing.
              • nine_k 10y ago
                "One IP address" as in "the address of the same NAT box"? With IPv6 it could work, or maybe with the local IP address passed by the script at click time, but the latter would be trivial to forge.
                • ashark 10y ago
                  Sure, but most or all ads on every page visited by a given IPV4 address surely throws up red flags, NAT notwithstanding. And all this is assuming that the extension bypasses session tracking and makes resorting to IP address necessary in the first place. Then again maybe it doesn't, since they bothered to ban this extension. They did seemingly more-or-less give up trying to sort spam search results from low-traffic but high-value sites a few years back, so I guess they can't algorithm their way out of every abuse problem. [EDIT] all ads on some pages visited by a given IP over some shortish span of time, I should say, in the case of NAT.
  • cybernytrix 10y ago
    Oh yeah, they are doing no evil! Probably time to switch back to Firefox.
  • lightedman 10y ago
    And they're locking users out of their data.
• ben0x539 10y ago
  People should still be giving Google shit for decisions like that, even if they're not surprised.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • morley 10y ago
    Why does Google deserve the shit for stopping people from taking money from them? I wouldn't think to give a department store shit for pressing charges against someone who smashed up a bunch of merchandise, whether or not the act was politically motivated.
    • chrisrhoden 10y ago
      As far as I know, there are laws against smashing up a bunch of merchandise you haven't paid for, and the department store would probably press charges rather than taking advantage of the fact that they're part of a conglomerate providing medical insurance to refuse coverage to the protestors on shaky grounds.
      • leereeves 10y ago
        Google's lobbyists may well be pushing for laws against "click fraud". (I'm just guessing that's what they might call it.)
        • chrisrhoden 10y ago
          They might! The case they would have to make seems pretty shaky to me, but legislators have done some things that seem pretty ridiculous to me in the past, and I am sure there is plenty more coming. That doesn't make acting in such blatantly bad faith until you are able to take legal action forgivable.
    • nilved 10y ago
      Are you trying to relate clicking ads to smashing up merchandise?
• waxim 10y ago
  Google HAS to block this and prevent it from ever being run if it can, its click fraud plain and simple and they've been stung too many times with huge bills for fraud it could have prevented and didn't.
  • vmateixeira 10y ago
    Disagree. If they want to stop click fraud, they can try to do it from other than the browser end.
  • ominous 10y ago
    Everything that is GETtable risks being GET. Why would Google serve an ad to someone who might click it without the intention of following through with the ad? Because Google chooses who to show the ad to. So it is really Google's fault. Google created click fraud. See how ridiculous this is?
    • damieng 10y ago
      Just issuing a GET doesn't cause a somebody to be charged. It's a process involving delivering specific tracking cookie along with the ad that should you end up clicking through to the intended destination gets tracked through either more cookies or tags in the URL.
      • AngrySkillzz 10y ago
        How is that the user's problem? I don't care what the ad network does. If they are sending me links and I'm choosing to click on them, whatever happens is their own fault. I entered into no contract with this company.
    • codazoda 10y ago
      ...and, this is how search engines work, on a simple level. They request a web page then they "click" on everything and request all those other pages. Of course, Google probably detects bots and doesn't count these clicks, but your statement that "Google created click fraud" is correct (although they weren't first) and kinda funny.
• cuu508 10y ago
  > This directly costs Google money. Instead of playing dirty they could accept the challenge and tweak their click-fraud algorithms. Reminds me of the joke about Jesus and Moses playing golf.
  • Spoom 10y ago
    Why get into an arms race when you control the battlefield?
• claudius 10y ago
  > But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top. This is the exact sort of thing anti-monopoly laws are intended to work against: that a major market force in one market uses that power to intrude or support itself in another market. Since Google Chrome undoubtedly has a sufficiently large market share that this may be a concern and the removal of this extension certainly affects the advertisement market, this seems like a very dangerous move for Google. Yes, it may be considered “self-defense” but is the cost incurred really so large that they want to risk another lawsuit?
  • chad-autry 10y ago
    But this isn't a case of two different markets...Google makes no money off of Chrome. They make money off of advertising. The bottom line of Chrome is that it is just there to view advertising. The better they can make it, the more it will be used, and the more advertising will be viewed (hopefully Google's)
    • throw_away 10y ago
      Microsoft wasn't making any money off of IE in 2001's US vs. Microsoft.
      • gravypod 10y ago
        It was defaulting to Yahoo who was paying them. Also their browser was mandatory, not optional. You don't need to use Chrome. I switched to FireFox long ago.
    • dsl 10y ago
      Google Assist (enterprise support and management for Chrome) makes a bunch of money.
  • ajross 10y ago
    > This is the exact sort of thing anti-monopoly laws are intended to work against: that a major market force in one market uses that power to intrude or support itself in another market. That's actually not true. There's some case law about that sort of thing (the Microsoft antitrust case being the most famous), but the basis for anti trust law has always been about price efficiency, not protection of competition for competition's sake (c.f. the Microsoft breakup was overturned), nor consumer benefit.
• 4684499 10y ago
  > This directly costs Google money. 1. Does a user searching without paying not cost Google's money? 2. Does a user using Chrome for free not cost Google's money? 3. They even built Chrome to boost advertising ecosystem. 4. Is there any law or ToS said users are not allowed to use a script to click the ads automatically? Are the advertising companies going to spy on me to check if I'm using a script? 5. Advertising surveillance directly violates my online privacy. Yet, "by using our services, you are agreed to our terms and conditions"
• ChuckMcM 10y ago
  No (it doesn't surprise me). I figured it would be banned at some point, it is essentially click fraud but with a (noble?) purpose. And once it reaches enough critical mass to be annoying (and by annoying I mean interfering with other analytics) it would be dealt with. I certainly resonate with the issue of advertising getting ridiculous (and love Troy Hunt's response) but don't begrudge Google their right to not help people mess with their income stream.
  • _audakel 10y ago
    It's important to separate the distinction between legal and illegal, and right versus wrong (morality). the two are sometimes correlated but they do not necessarily have to be. It's much easier to prove something legal or illegal because you just look at the laws on the books. It's like a mathematical proof. It doesn't have to be morally correct but it can still be legal. The holdup are people confusing this click fraud with immoral. It seems to be very clearly illegal by the books, but in my opinion a moral and right thing to do
• rattray 10y ago
  I'm not surprised either, and I might do the same if I were Google, but "Tyrannical" does feel like an appropriate word given they are using their multi-industry monopolies to crush threats.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• dvfjsdhgfv 10y ago
  You're being imprecise - it doesn't cost Google money, it is advertisers who are losing money in this case. Of course, in the long run, if clicking ads gets popular as a trend among adblocking tools, it can influence the whole industry, and Google will earn less money. This is not the same thing, though.