4 ms·

Are you trying to relate clicking ads to smashing up merchandise?

by nilved 10y ago

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.
      - notahacker 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. Blocking an ad/tracker is being "not particularly cooperative", and fulfils the goal of not seeing ads or being tracked pretty well. The entire point of modifying an existing ad blocker to click everything, as stated by the creators is to disrupt the metrics to the point where the system doesn't continue to work as intended, and cost the indiscriminately clicked ad-purchasers an average of $1.58 per wasted PPC click, as they've taken the effort to estimate (see their FAQ). I can't see how anyone can honestly argue that a tool whose creators openly state that its purpose is to indiscriminately "obstruct" and "resist" an industry to force it to change its business model by rendering its analytics worthless and wasting PPCers budgets isn't sabotage, irrespective of whether they agree with the desirability of the end goal.
- doodpants 10y ago
  Can you cite any evidence that the "stated" intent of AdNauseam is to cost the target money? According to their video, the intent is to protect the user's privacy by preventing advertisers from building an accurate personal profile of the user. You may argue that this has the effect of costing the advertisers money, but just because that is a result, doesn't make it the primary goal. It's certainly not AdNauseam's fault if the advertiser's business model depends on violating user privacy.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    From AdNauseum's FAQ Indeed it is marginally safer for one to simply use a strong adblocker and protect themselves. And it is also safer to stay at home rather than to attend a protest. But safety is not the only concern. Using an adblocker does little to change the status quo. AdNauseam, and the obfuscation strategy in general, instead presents a possible avenue for collective resistance; a means of questioning and perhaps, eventually, changing the system. But this is not for everyone. If your goal is primarily self-protection, it may not be for you... So they're aware of the fact this is worse at protecting privacy than a simple blocker, and equally unambiguous about their objectives being to change the status quo by damaging ad networks' business models. And yes, they've calculated the direct cost of some of those clicks too: As the precise cost generated by clicks is not visible to the client, AdNauseam calculates an estimate using an average value of $1.58 for each clicked Ad.
- nilved 10y ago
  The stated intent of blocking ads is not to cost the target money.
- type0 10y ago
  > Both actions are done with the stated intent of costing the target money. No it doesn't, it is to obfuscate the results about your interest and make the information they sell about you - useless. They are not giving me any money so I have no obligation to provide truthful ad clicks either. > (in a manner intended to bring the system down) but so do many DDoS attacks... You can't be serious, it's not comparable to DDoS attacks. It is just obfuscation, pure and simple. It is not in any way unethical either, digital surveillance that ad companies practice is on the other hand very much unethical. When I visit one website, why should dozens of third parties be able to sella and that information? When did they ask my consent? The only way to make that info useless is to have automated add-on like this, if the majority would use it, we wouldn't have as big problems of ad networks spreading malware and proving government agencies with surveillance information.

Are you trying to relate clicking ads to smashing up merchandise?

by 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.
    - notahacker 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. Blocking an ad/tracker is being "not particularly cooperative", and fulfils the goal of not seeing ads or being tracked pretty well. The entire point of modifying an existing ad blocker to click everything, as stated by the creators is to disrupt the metrics to the point where the system doesn't continue to work as intended, and cost the indiscriminately clicked ad-purchasers an average of $1.58 per wasted PPC click, as they've taken the effort to estimate (see their FAQ). I can't see how anyone can honestly argue that a tool whose creators openly state that its purpose is to indiscriminately "obstruct" and "resist" an industry to force it to change its business model by rendering its analytics worthless and wasting PPCers budgets isn't sabotage, irrespective of whether they agree with the desirability of the end goal.
doodpants 10y ago
Can you cite any evidence that the "stated" intent of AdNauseam is to cost the target money? According to their video, the intent is to protect the user's privacy by preventing advertisers from building an accurate personal profile of the user. You may argue that this has the effect of costing the advertisers money, but just because that is a result, doesn't make it the primary goal. It's certainly not AdNauseam's fault if the advertiser's business model depends on violating user privacy.
- notahacker 10y ago
  From AdNauseum's FAQ Indeed it is marginally safer for one to simply use a strong adblocker and protect themselves. And it is also safer to stay at home rather than to attend a protest. But safety is not the only concern. Using an adblocker does little to change the status quo. AdNauseam, and the obfuscation strategy in general, instead presents a possible avenue for collective resistance; a means of questioning and perhaps, eventually, changing the system. But this is not for everyone. If your goal is primarily self-protection, it may not be for you... So they're aware of the fact this is worse at protecting privacy than a simple blocker, and equally unambiguous about their objectives being to change the status quo by damaging ad networks' business models. And yes, they've calculated the direct cost of some of those clicks too: As the precise cost generated by clicks is not visible to the client, AdNauseam calculates an estimate using an average value of $1.58 for each clicked Ad.
nilved 10y ago
The stated intent of blocking ads is not to cost the target money.
type0 10y ago
> Both actions are done with the stated intent of costing the target money. No it doesn't, it is to obfuscate the results about your interest and make the information they sell about you - useless. They are not giving me any money so I have no obligation to provide truthful ad clicks either. > (in a manner intended to bring the system down) but so do many DDoS attacks... You can't be serious, it's not comparable to DDoS attacks. It is just obfuscation, pure and simple. It is not in any way unethical either, digital surveillance that ad companies practice is on the other hand very much unethical. When I visit one website, why should dozens of third parties be able to sella and that information? When did they ask my consent? The only way to make that info useless is to have automated add-on like this, if the majority would use it, we wouldn't have as big problems of ad networks spreading malware and proving government agencies with surveillance information.