7 ms·
Google Squashed a Chrome Extension That Flooded Ad Networks with Disinformation
- jseliger 10y agoThe good news is that there might be some Streisand Effect going on here: I'd never heard of AdNauseam. Now I've added it to Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/.
- zelon88 10y agoSo "Don't be evil" must apply only to paying customers.
- teddyh 10y agoGoogle is too big to have customers.
- dguido 10y agoThis extension made no sense anyway! Clicking every single ad is bound to get you so many tracking cookies and give up so much metadata about your browsing that you're working against your own privacy by using it (see also "cookieless fingerprinting": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13644139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13644139). Not to mention that it's actively disruptive to the websites you visit (which presumably you like since you are visiting them) by generating so many extraneous and unnecessary network requests. You will slow down your browsing and get your favorite websites banned from the ad networks they use (see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13644226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13644226). If you don't like ads, just block them. This plugin is a silly pipedream thought up by lawyers and artists without any relevant consultation from technologists or ad industry experts. It's harmful to everyone that uses it. Btw, if you're using this plugin on Firefox, enjoy the exploits that your browser downloads and runs in the background by clicking every ad! :-D
- babesh 10y agoI think the idea is that the ad networks then don't have any idea what you are actually interested in. The problem from Google's side is that it is pay per click for the advertiser so advertisers are paying for these fake clicks.
- Someone1234 10y agoIt can also cause Google to ban sites from Adsense. Google will ban a site from hosting Adsense ads if Google believes that the site's operators are generating fake clicks. The way they detect this is a trade secret, but many sites have gotten arbitrarily banned after users seemingly clicked ads artificially in a misguided attempt to help the site. This extension will no doubt be used by a certain subset of users. Those same users may use some sites in a disproportionate number, that could result in people's favorite sites getting banned and losing the ad revenue that keeps the lights on. I don't actually think this extension is "bad" or "wrong" just might have unintended side effects.
- mthoodlum 10y agoGoogle harms website operators based on the actions of third-parties. Third-parties are to blame.
- Someone1234 10y agoIs re-stating what I said above really constructive? Yes, that's what might happen. You may not like it, but that's the reality of the situation.
- mthoodlum 10y agoI think blaming third parties in this scenario is silly and Google should be broken up.
- mcguire 10y ago"It can also cause Google to ban sites from Adsense." If you object to ads, is that a bad thing?
- chenshuiluke 10y agoNow I'll be testing this out in firefox. Thanks, lol
- problems 10y agoIs there any interest level in a Frida script or similar that would fully bypass Google's extension signing so you could load this without the nag into official Chrome? Seems like it might be an interesting little reverse engineering project.
- inlined 10y agoDisclaimer: I'm a Google employee, though I have no inside knowledge about this case at all. > Do not create an extension that requires users to accept bundles of unrelated functionality, such as an email notifier and a news headline aggregator It sounds like they may have just requested oddly broad permissions. Google really cares about privacy. They really care about consent fatigue from unnecessary permissions. Is it possible this is just an effort to rein in unnecessary permissions & the app will be reinstated after the fat is trimmed?
- u_wot_m8 10y ago>Google really cares about privacy Is this a joke? Considering Google is a glorified data mining company I'm going to have to disagree
- SerLava 10y agoWell hey, if your data is private to everyone other than Google, guess who wins?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Arnt 10y agoMarketing to friends of your existing customers is a natural goal, right? And Google has that data for maybe half of humanity, in its gmail archive. A highly saleable commodity. But try to make Google sell you either that gmail contact data or anything equivalent.
- Ajedi32 10y agoDepends on what you mean by privacy. If a computer program collects information about you to determine what products you might be interested in, but never reveals that information to anyone but yourself (by showing you ads related to those interests), is that information still private? I would argue that it is.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago>Google really cares about privacy I was laughing too hard after this part that I stopped reading the rest of the comment.
- soared 10y agoRelevant - Someone posted a show hn for [1] but it was never released or updated. https://hello-kill.github.io/ https://hello-kill.github.io/
- michaelbuckbee 10y agoThere's a real disconnect in behavior and branding here. Consider if this extension did exactly the same thing, but was called "Ad Click Faker" and was used by those defrauding companies and sites. That doesn't seem like a positive thing, so I'm not sure why AdNauseum should be either.
- mayneack 10y agoIs that actually defrauding or just not what the ad companies had in mind? Do the ToS of websites ban such a thing? If I don't care about ad networks wasting money (I don't), why should I care?
- Ajedi32 10y agoPrevious discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13327228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13327228