4 ms·

>(I'm not entirely kidding, I don't understand why other forms of fraud are punishable with prison time but ad fraud is totally a-ok). It's very simple: no act

>(I'm not entirely kidding, I don't understand why other forms of fraud are punishable with prison time but ad fraud is totally a-ok). It's very simple: no actual fraud in a legal sense has been committed. The person clicking the ad certainly hasn't signed any contract with the ad publisher, so how could they possibly be committing fraud by clicking the ad? The creator of the application showing the ads does not sign a contract guaranteeing to the advertiser that every click is legitimate (how could they possibly enforce, or even measure that), so it's not fraud on their part either.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
I'm pretty sure toddlers don't have the capacity to commit fraud because no reasonable person would rely on a toddler's representation of material facts to make a decision that could result in injury to themselves.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  I think the alleged fraud is on the part of the ad vendor that placed the hard-to-click, tap three times while it makes a synchronous network request, 25% opacity, 10x10px close/skip button on the ad in a game targeted to toddlers, not the toddler.
andrewla 8y ago
Actually, usually the creator of the application showing the ads does in fact sign a contract with the ad publisher. They get money in exchange for clicks; if they are obtaining those clicks through subterfuge or dark patterns, they stand at a minimum to not receive their ad revenue, and if it is egregious and done with intent, then there's no reason that it wouldn't be considered fraud. Measuring and enforcing click fraud is probably the single biggest technical challenge involved in being an ad publisher. EDIT: For example, Google AdMob: https://support.google.com/admob/answer/48182 https://support.google.com/admob/answer/48182
skrebbel 8y ago
If I buy an ad, I expect it to be clicked consciously. Even if that's not explicit, which I think it ought to be, there's an implied contract there that if by pay per click, those clicks are made by people who choose to do so. There's no difference between having scripts, robots, or toddlers generate fake clicks.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

TheCoelacanth 8y ago

I'm pretty sure toddlers don't have the capacity to commit fraud because no reasonable person would rely on a toddler's representation of material facts to make a decision that could result in injury to themselves.

ceejayoz 8y ago
I think the alleged fraud is on the part of the ad vendor that placed the hard-to-click, tap three times while it makes a synchronous network request, 25% opacity, 10x10px close/skip button on the ad in a game targeted to toddlers, not the toddler.

andrewla 8y ago

Actually, usually the creator of the application showing the ads does in fact sign a contract with the ad publisher. They get money in exchange for clicks; if they are obtaining those clicks through subterfuge or dark patterns, they stand at a minimum to not receive their ad revenue, and if it is egregious and done with intent, then there's no reason that it wouldn't be considered fraud. Measuring and enforcing click fraud is probably the single biggest technical challenge involved in being an ad publisher. EDIT: For example, Google AdMob: https://support.google.com/admob/answer/48182 https://support.google.com/admob/answer/48182

skrebbel 8y ago

If I buy an ad, I expect it to be clicked consciously. Even if that's not explicit, which I think it ought to be, there's an implied contract there that if by pay per click, those clicks are made by people who choose to do so. There's no difference between having scripts, robots, or toddlers generate fake clicks.