4 ms·

It doesn't quite work that way. Yes, it decreases the usefulness of ad networks and hurts them - hopefully inciting change eventually. But between the reader

It doesn't quite work that way. Yes, it decreases the usefulness of ad networks and hurts them - hopefully inciting change eventually. But between the reader and the ad network is the website owner. They typically have no say or control over the ad network. As fake clicks are detected they are the ones that will get punished. Their CPN can drop meaning a real hit in revenue. If fake ad clicks add up they may be booted form the ad network and then they lose all ad revenue. That is real harm. We can all agree that ad networks can be invasive and we need real change. But lets be honest that there is real collateral damage and this does cause it.

icebraining 9y ago
They typically have no say or control over the ad network. How so? They chose the ad network, no?
- notgood 9y ago
  So what? What happens next? Do I have to ask every creator of ad attacks extensions like AdNauseam if the ad network I wanna use fits in their definition of "good" before adding it to my site? Do I have to ask them for permission about what HTML/JavaScript can I place in my website? Worse, what happens if they think every ad network that fits my user-base is evil? Then what? I still need to make ends meet so should I try to bribe the AdNauseam devs into whitelisting my site? That's the thing about attacking on the basis of having the moral high ground, you are very likely to end up becoming the thing you hate. EDIT: (cause HN doesn't let me reply) Answer to @icebraining It's way more like, what if I'm pouring red colorant to the rivers, and I know the colorants make absolutely no damage to the river but activists still try to destroy my business because they strongly believe so. So yeah, I find your counter-argument depressing as well; because its not about who is right or wrong but the one who believes themselves in control to determine being both the judge and the executioner. Answer to @wongarsu: After installed this extension silently attacks networks, and you think people is gonna care enough to jump to the next best one... because you think they are constantly reading about the moral basis of the blacklisted ad networks? ...right? You are more delusional than expected and I hope ad networks start pouring money into permanently banning users of this extension from all major websites.
  - wongarsu 9y ago
    AdNauseam has a clear definition of "good" ad networks [1]: with default settings it allows ads that obey do-not-track headers, as tracked by the EFF. Of course in theory they could become some kind of evil authoritarian censor board. But that would cause a lot of users to jump to the next best extension. It's not really a big threat. >what happens if they think every ad network that fits my user-base is evil? That sounds unlikely, but if that happens and you are too small to manage your ads yourself, you should find a different revenue stream. Or start an ad network, since you've obviously just found an under-served market niche :) 1:https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-effs-do-not-track-standard-and-how-it-is-supported-in-adnauseam https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-effs...
    - notgood 9y ago
      After installed this extension silently attacks networks, and you think people is gonna care enough to jump to the next best one... because you think they are constantly reading about the moral basis of the blacklisted ad networks? ...right? You are more delusional than expected and I hope ad networks start pouring money into permanently banning users of this extension from all major websites.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I don't even use Adnauseam, but I find it a bit depressing that you don't see the flaw in that argument. Let's leave ads aside and think of something else. Say businesses were dumping toxic chemicals into rivers, and activists were plugging those pipes. Would "I still need to make ends meet" be a valid excuse for those businesses? Now, I'm sure you don't consider online advertising to be the same as dumping toxic chemicals. Like I said, I don't use the addon either. But for those who do, your argument is simply invalid. And the claim that they become the thing they hate makes no sense.
    - notgood 9y ago
      It's way more like, what if I'm pouring red colorant to the rivers, and I know the colorants make absolutely no damage to the river but activists still try to destroy my business because they strongly believe so. So yeah, I find your counter-argument depressing as well; because its not about who is right or wrong but the one who believes themselves in control to determine being both the judge and the executioner.
wongarsu 9y ago
>They typically have no say or control over the ad network It's a free market. They have full control over their choice of ad network. In fact they are the ones who have the longest lever for forcing change in ad networks. If everyone goes to an ad network that serves non-tracking, non-distracting, non-scamming ads that don't deliver malware, then only ad networks that deliver that survive.
- JohnTHaller 9y ago
  And there are so many ad networks out there that don't do tracking and have revenues high enough to keep a website afloat. I can think of exactly zero that fit that bill.
  - norikki 9y ago
    Then maybe ad networks aren't the solution. Maybe it's Flatr or a browser like Brave that automatically pays websites you visit a few cents worth of Bitcoin. The current solution of creepy privacy-violating ad networks must go, and alternatives won't develop organically until there is pressure on publishers to find alternatives.
    - JohnTHaller 9y ago
      Flattr failed and is relaunching as a content-backing site for journalists. Brave requires a whole new browser with no extensions support and no online sync and doesn't support actual fees or payments, it's an optional distributed tip jar. You want to put pressure on publishers? Refuse to visit their site if you don't like the ads.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        > You want to put pressure on publishers? Refuse to visit their site if you don't like the ads. Visiting their site with AdNauseam might put an even bigger pressure on them than not visiting their site at all.

icebraining 9y ago

They typically have no say or control over the ad network. How so? They chose the ad network, no?

notgood 9y ago
So what? What happens next? Do I have to ask every creator of ad attacks extensions like AdNauseam if the ad network I wanna use fits in their definition of "good" before adding it to my site? Do I have to ask them for permission about what HTML/JavaScript can I place in my website? Worse, what happens if they think every ad network that fits my user-base is evil? Then what? I still need to make ends meet so should I try to bribe the AdNauseam devs into whitelisting my site? That's the thing about attacking on the basis of having the moral high ground, you are very likely to end up becoming the thing you hate. EDIT: (cause HN doesn't let me reply) Answer to @icebraining It's way more like, what if I'm pouring red colorant to the rivers, and I know the colorants make absolutely no damage to the river but activists still try to destroy my business because they strongly believe so. So yeah, I find your counter-argument depressing as well; because its not about who is right or wrong but the one who believes themselves in control to determine being both the judge and the executioner. Answer to @wongarsu: After installed this extension silently attacks networks, and you think people is gonna care enough to jump to the next best one... because you think they are constantly reading about the moral basis of the blacklisted ad networks? ...right? You are more delusional than expected and I hope ad networks start pouring money into permanently banning users of this extension from all major websites.
- wongarsu 9y ago
  AdNauseam has a clear definition of "good" ad networks [1]: with default settings it allows ads that obey do-not-track headers, as tracked by the EFF. Of course in theory they could become some kind of evil authoritarian censor board. But that would cause a lot of users to jump to the next best extension. It's not really a big threat. >what happens if they think every ad network that fits my user-base is evil? That sounds unlikely, but if that happens and you are too small to manage your ads yourself, you should find a different revenue stream. Or start an ad network, since you've obviously just found an under-served market niche :) 1:https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-effs-do-not-track-standard-and-how-it-is-supported-in-adnauseam https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-effs...
  - notgood 9y ago
    After installed this extension silently attacks networks, and you think people is gonna care enough to jump to the next best one... because you think they are constantly reading about the moral basis of the blacklisted ad networks? ...right? You are more delusional than expected and I hope ad networks start pouring money into permanently banning users of this extension from all major websites.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I don't even use Adnauseam, but I find it a bit depressing that you don't see the flaw in that argument. Let's leave ads aside and think of something else. Say businesses were dumping toxic chemicals into rivers, and activists were plugging those pipes. Would "I still need to make ends meet" be a valid excuse for those businesses? Now, I'm sure you don't consider online advertising to be the same as dumping toxic chemicals. Like I said, I don't use the addon either. But for those who do, your argument is simply invalid. And the claim that they become the thing they hate makes no sense.
  - notgood 9y ago
    It's way more like, what if I'm pouring red colorant to the rivers, and I know the colorants make absolutely no damage to the river but activists still try to destroy my business because they strongly believe so. So yeah, I find your counter-argument depressing as well; because its not about who is right or wrong but the one who believes themselves in control to determine being both the judge and the executioner.

wongarsu 9y ago

>They typically have no say or control over the ad network It's a free market. They have full control over their choice of ad network. In fact they are the ones who have the longest lever for forcing change in ad networks. If everyone goes to an ad network that serves non-tracking, non-distracting, non-scamming ads that don't deliver malware, then only ad networks that deliver that survive.

JohnTHaller 9y ago
And there are so many ad networks out there that don't do tracking and have revenues high enough to keep a website afloat. I can think of exactly zero that fit that bill.
- norikki 9y ago
  Then maybe ad networks aren't the solution. Maybe it's Flatr or a browser like Brave that automatically pays websites you visit a few cents worth of Bitcoin. The current solution of creepy privacy-violating ad networks must go, and alternatives won't develop organically until there is pressure on publishers to find alternatives.
  - JohnTHaller 9y ago
    Flattr failed and is relaunching as a content-backing site for journalists. Brave requires a whole new browser with no extensions support and no online sync and doesn't support actual fees or payments, it's an optional distributed tip jar. You want to put pressure on publishers? Refuse to visit their site if you don't like the ads.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      > You want to put pressure on publishers? Refuse to visit their site if you don't like the ads. Visiting their site with AdNauseam might put an even bigger pressure on them than not visiting their site at all.