4 ms·

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

by 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.
      - ben0x539 10y ago
        I don't think you can reasonably frame clicking on too many ads as an act of sabotage. It's interfering with the metrics that some people who you don't necessarily have a business relationship use to make business decisions (like paying out money), but it's not obvious to me how you're obligated to be particularly cooperative in their gathering of the metrics. The system continues to work as intended, you're just not supplying it with the data its creators would ideally hope to receive. That also seems to contrast it with a DoS attack. I agree that Google should probably remove browser extensions that are convincingly designed to facilitate actual fraud. I'd also be on board with Google removing a browser extension that was designed by a site operator to produce artificial clicks on ads on that particular site, since now there's someone involved who probably signed a thing saying they won't produce artificial clicks. But my point with my examples was that you can harm someone's bottom line without it being fraud or otherwise illegal, so it doesn't just follow that if you harm someone's business, you're doing the equivalent of a DoS or smashing up their merchandise.
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.

by morley 10y ago

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.
    - ben0x539 10y ago
      I don't think you can reasonably frame clicking on too many ads as an act of sabotage. It's interfering with the metrics that some people who you don't necessarily have a business relationship use to make business decisions (like paying out money), but it's not obvious to me how you're obligated to be particularly cooperative in their gathering of the metrics. The system continues to work as intended, you're just not supplying it with the data its creators would ideally hope to receive. That also seems to contrast it with a DoS attack. I agree that Google should probably remove browser extensions that are convincingly designed to facilitate actual fraud. I'd also be on board with Google removing a browser extension that was designed by a site operator to produce artificial clicks on ads on that particular site, since now there's someone involved who probably signed a thing saying they won't produce artificial clicks. But my point with my examples was that you can harm someone's bottom line without it being fraud or otherwise illegal, so it doesn't just follow that if you harm someone's business, you're doing the equivalent of a DoS or smashing up their merchandise.

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.