9 ms·

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?
  - kylebenzle 10y ago
    Yes, he is. People get very sensitive (and illogical) when their income is put at stake.
    - hsod 10y ago
      No need for personal attacks. While the analogy (like all analogies) is an imperfect one, there are clearly some parallels between the two situations and I think the comparison is interesting. It's purpose is to get you to look at things from the other side: what would you do if one of your customers was intentionally harming your business? To pre-empt a personal attack against me: I do not make a living from advertising.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Both actions are done with the stated intent of costing the target money. Sure, it only involves accessing URLs the public is actively encouraged to visit (in a manner intended to bring the system down) but so do many DDoS attacks...
    - ben0x539 10y ago
      A lot of things costing a company money are perfectly reasonable and we rightly complain if a company sabotages them. Things like leaving negative reviews/ratings, receiving refunds for defective products or shopping around to compare prices ultimately hurt someone's bottom line, so I think we can expect better from an analogy here.
      - notahacker 10y ago
        I think "indiscriminately bombard ad networks with the intent of sabotaging the ad network's business" is a lot closer to my DDoS example (or smashing up a store) than "if a product proves to be disappointing, exercise my statutory right to a refund and/or tell people about it". I'd also feel Google could and probably should remove browser extensions whose distinctive feature was that they automated the process of submitting fake reviews or purchases/cancellations if they stumbled across a class of product the plugin designer disapproved of enough to want to harm the vendors' ability to continue selling it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ben0x539 10y ago
  I feel like we could come up with an analogy that captures more of the nuance of the issue. How'd we feel about it if Windows went around and uninstalled non-Microsoft-Office word processors, to stop competing companies taking money from the Office division? Sure, Google wants to make money on ads and they're under no obligation to let people use their infrastructure to undermine that goal. But likewise, the people who get fucked over by Google compromising the Chrome ecosystem to defend their ad income are under no obligation to be particularly enthusiastic about it.
- timbre 10y ago
  > We wrote Google to ask the reason for this sudden move and they responded that AdNauseam had breached the Web Store’s terms of service, stating that “An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users…” They deserve shit for lying.
- __jal 10y ago
  Google deserves shit for using market power to stop the purchasers of personal devices from running software of their choice. If the user does something with their device Google dislikes, Google can block the user from using Google services, or if they're doing something illegal, they can go that route. This habit of retroactively removing functionality from devices is not OK. If Google relies on a business model other people hate, perhaps they should give some thought in to doing something about that.
  - prirun 10y ago
    And users deserve shit for buying Chromecrap, then expecting Google to act in users' interests rather than its own. Most large tech companies want to get a noose around users' necks. If you stick your head in the noose, guess what happens?
- harpiaharpyja 10y ago
  I don't hold any bad feelings towards Google for banning AdNauseam. What I do hold against them is that they are not being open and transparent with their reasons.
fryguy 10y ago
If you look at it as the extension performs fraud, then what Google did is completely defensible. And I feel that it does. You may not feel that way exactly, but it's certainly justifiable that the extensions actions defraud the ad network.
- mattlevan 10y ago
  Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?
  - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
    Fraud is a poor word choice, because it is a legal term. There must be a better word out there.
    - otterley 10y ago
      Attorney here! (But not your attorney and not giving legal advice -- seek qualified counsel in your state if you need assistance.) Sending automated clicks to ads arguably meets all the elements of common-law fraud: (1) A false representation of fact (that the user clicked on the ad); (2) Knowledge of the falsity (by the user installing and using the extension); (3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!); (4) Reasonable reliance by the innocent party (by believing the "click" was real and intended); (5) Actual loss suffered (by paying the owner/operator of the page containing the ad) In my view, therefore, "fraud" is an applicable term.
      - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
        Since the packets are being sent to your computer, I consider the situation analogous to a someone coming to your home and then you replying to them with bogus information. Maybe that still fits this definition of fraud, in which case I would say I don't believe such fraud should be legally suable. I think the users property rights of their computer trumps the advertiser's complaint about fraud.
Pica_soO 10y ago
One of the many things about humanity- we adapt to near all circumstances no matter how bad. And we adapt fast, in 20 years from cold-war showroom equality and egality to oligarchy without borders. Oligarchs abusing there power? Not so bad, as long as it hits somebody else backyard. Even better, if it just never makes its way into the news. All even, the democratic powers playing the great game again, condemning every country who doesn't want to be a feudal servant and go for a "Leave me alone" nuke-stance? And after all - hey we are still here, aren't we- so its not so bad. People vanishing every night? Guess, one can get used to that, nobody of the vanished has ever complained. And hey, dropping housing prices, finally a solution to that. To actually get a accurate, neutral moral "measurement" you would have to take a group and enclose them in the isolate standards of the past- and then have them write about how they perceive today. The interesting measurement question- if there is one, is what is left that those in power could do- they wouldn't get away with? That couldn't be swept under the rug, that once really tied the room together?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

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?
- kylebenzle 10y ago
  Yes, he is. People get very sensitive (and illogical) when their income is put at stake.
  - hsod 10y ago
    No need for personal attacks. While the analogy (like all analogies) is an imperfect one, there are clearly some parallels between the two situations and I think the comparison is interesting. It's purpose is to get you to look at things from the other side: what would you do if one of your customers was intentionally harming your business? To pre-empt a personal attack against me: I do not make a living from advertising.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Both actions are done with the stated intent of costing the target money. Sure, it only involves accessing URLs the public is actively encouraged to visit (in a manner intended to bring the system down) but so do many DDoS attacks...
  - ben0x539 10y ago
    A lot of things costing a company money are perfectly reasonable and we rightly complain if a company sabotages them. Things like leaving negative reviews/ratings, receiving refunds for defective products or shopping around to compare prices ultimately hurt someone's bottom line, so I think we can expect better from an analogy here.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      I think "indiscriminately bombard ad networks with the intent of sabotaging the ad network's business" is a lot closer to my DDoS example (or smashing up a store) than "if a product proves to be disappointing, exercise my statutory right to a refund and/or tell people about it". I'd also feel Google could and probably should remove browser extensions whose distinctive feature was that they automated the process of submitting fake reviews or purchases/cancellations if they stumbled across a class of product the plugin designer disapproved of enough to want to harm the vendors' ability to continue selling it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ben0x539 10y ago
I feel like we could come up with an analogy that captures more of the nuance of the issue. How'd we feel about it if Windows went around and uninstalled non-Microsoft-Office word processors, to stop competing companies taking money from the Office division? Sure, Google wants to make money on ads and they're under no obligation to let people use their infrastructure to undermine that goal. But likewise, the people who get fucked over by Google compromising the Chrome ecosystem to defend their ad income are under no obligation to be particularly enthusiastic about it.
timbre 10y ago
> We wrote Google to ask the reason for this sudden move and they responded that AdNauseam had breached the Web Store’s terms of service, stating that “An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users…” They deserve shit for lying.
__jal 10y ago
Google deserves shit for using market power to stop the purchasers of personal devices from running software of their choice. If the user does something with their device Google dislikes, Google can block the user from using Google services, or if they're doing something illegal, they can go that route. This habit of retroactively removing functionality from devices is not OK. If Google relies on a business model other people hate, perhaps they should give some thought in to doing something about that.
- prirun 10y ago
  And users deserve shit for buying Chromecrap, then expecting Google to act in users' interests rather than its own. Most large tech companies want to get a noose around users' necks. If you stick your head in the noose, guess what happens?
harpiaharpyja 10y ago
I don't hold any bad feelings towards Google for banning AdNauseam. What I do hold against them is that they are not being open and transparent with their reasons.

fryguy 10y ago

If you look at it as the extension performs fraud, then what Google did is completely defensible. And I feel that it does. You may not feel that way exactly, but it's certainly justifiable that the extensions actions defraud the ad network.

mattlevan 10y ago
Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  Fraud is a poor word choice, because it is a legal term. There must be a better word out there.
  - otterley 10y ago
    Attorney here! (But not your attorney and not giving legal advice -- seek qualified counsel in your state if you need assistance.) Sending automated clicks to ads arguably meets all the elements of common-law fraud: (1) A false representation of fact (that the user clicked on the ad); (2) Knowledge of the falsity (by the user installing and using the extension); (3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!); (4) Reasonable reliance by the innocent party (by believing the "click" was real and intended); (5) Actual loss suffered (by paying the owner/operator of the page containing the ad) In my view, therefore, "fraud" is an applicable term.
    - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
      Since the packets are being sent to your computer, I consider the situation analogous to a someone coming to your home and then you replying to them with bogus information. Maybe that still fits this definition of fraud, in which case I would say I don't believe such fraud should be legally suable. I think the users property rights of their computer trumps the advertiser's complaint about fraud.

Pica_soO 10y ago

One of the many things about humanity- we adapt to near all circumstances no matter how bad. And we adapt fast, in 20 years from cold-war showroom equality and egality to oligarchy without borders. Oligarchs abusing there power? Not so bad, as long as it hits somebody else backyard. Even better, if it just never makes its way into the news. All even, the democratic powers playing the great game again, condemning every country who doesn't want to be a feudal servant and go for a "Leave me alone" nuke-stance? And after all - hey we are still here, aren't we- so its not so bad. People vanishing every night? Guess, one can get used to that, nobody of the vanished has ever complained. And hey, dropping housing prices, finally a solution to that. To actually get a accurate, neutral moral "measurement" you would have to take a group and enclose them in the isolate standards of the past- and then have them write about how they perceive today. The interesting measurement question- if there is one, is what is left that those in power could do- they wouldn't get away with? That couldn't be swept under the rug, that once really tied the room together?