7 ms·

I can't believe we've accepted the term "ad fraud" for this, as if we were being any more deceptive than the ad industry is, or as if we had signed a contract t

I can't believe we've accepted the term "ad fraud" for this, as if we were being any more deceptive than the ad industry is, or as if we had signed a contract that we violated. As if not truthfully clicking on ads were a crime. We don't owe advertisers anything, least of all the truth.

minikites 8y ago
To some people, nothing is a greater sin than disrupting market capitalism.
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  I think the general public doesn't really shed a tear for the advertising industry. Those who cry over this probably have a financial stake in ads&marketing.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    They did say some. It is also what is sarcastically referred to as felony interference with a business model but that is a pretty niche term.
    - zentiggr 8y ago
      I had not heard that term, but oh my, wouldn't it be hilarious if some congress critters tried to get that written up as an actual law?
  - dwild 8y ago
    > have a financial stake in ads&marketing. Don't we all have a stake in ads? You made me realize this because "cry over this" but I'm not in that industry at all and your sentence seemed to me like just an over-generalization made to justify your point of view. I then remembered all the time that I couldn't have read/watch/learned something if I didn't have ads in the past, simply because I couldn't convince my parents to use their credit card (for valid reason though). I remember all the time right I wouldn't have read/watch/learned simply because the risk of it being not worth it was too high even nowadays. I remember all the time that I currently have to simply trust the comments over an article because it's behind a paywall and I just can't subscribe to every news website. Actually I have a pretty big stake in this industry. I wouldn't have been the software engineer I am right now if it wasn't from the content that was subsidized by ads. The ones that made that content were also underage and were able to build a pretty big company out of it (Site du Zéro, they are now called OpenClassroom) that now employ an hundred employees (luckily they no longer depends on ads, but still it was what made them being able to breakthrough).
    - criddell 8y ago
      Many of us don't have a particular problem with advertising in general, it's mostly the surveillance aspect of it. Your parents wouldn't or couldn't pay for things you wanted access to. Do you think they would have been okay with you trading your privacy instead?
      - jordigh 8y ago
        And many of us do have a problem with advertising in general. Most people don't want to see ads. At best we put up with them or manage to ignore them. Very rarely, do we actively seek out ads. Usually we only do that when we get lots of entertainment from the ad itself, as in the Lego Movie There has to be a better way to make sure the internet doesn't starve than ads, and not seeing that way doesn't mean that ads and manipulative marketing are inevitable.
- teawrecks 8y ago
  But...unless the government is intervening, isn't this just capitalism at work?
  - anoncake 8y ago
    Does using/developing AdNauseam somehow involve profit-seeking? Wage labour? Private property? What's capitalistic about it?
a_imho 8y ago
I can't believe we've accepted the term "ad fraud" for this Did we?
- jordigh 8y ago
  It's being used elsewhere in this thread unchallenged. I felt compelled to challenge it.
shittyadmin 8y ago
Click fraud is typically only used when you're the one receiving profits from the fake clicks. In which case fraud seems pretty appropriate.
- jordigh 8y ago
  That's not the way it is being used elsewhere in this thread. They're calling what Ad Nauseam does "ad fraud" and are saying how easy it is to spot and fight against.
  - Wohlf 8y ago
    Probably because the posters are working in an industry where click fraud is a serious business concern.
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    Can you point to an example of such a comment? I don't see anyone saying that what AdNauseum does is ad fraud, just that it's detectable via the same mechanisms that detect ad fraud.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I can't believe we've accepted the term "ad fraud" for this “Ad fraud” is widely accepted when automated clicks are done by or on behalf of someone getting paid for the ads (the site owner selling ad space, usually, as the advertising network, if they were going to defraud the party buying ad placement, would just as easily invent false numbers that employ automated clickers to juice their own stats.) Other than that, no.
Ajedi32 8y ago
I don't see anyone here saying that using AdNauseam is ad fraud (unless you're visiting your own site with it). What the other comments you seem to be referring to are saying is that AdNauseam's behavior is similar to ad fraud, and therefore detectable via the same mechanisms that detect ad fraud. The term itself is perfectly reasonable. If you're intentionally clicking ads on your own site in order to mislead the advertising provider about your CTR and thus generate more revenue for yourself, that's clearly fraud.

minikites 8y ago

To some people, nothing is a greater sin than disrupting market capitalism.

Tsubasachan 8y ago
I think the general public doesn't really shed a tear for the advertising industry. Those who cry over this probably have a financial stake in ads&marketing.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  They did say some. It is also what is sarcastically referred to as felony interference with a business model but that is a pretty niche term.
  - zentiggr 8y ago
    I had not heard that term, but oh my, wouldn't it be hilarious if some congress critters tried to get that written up as an actual law?
- dwild 8y ago
  > have a financial stake in ads&marketing. Don't we all have a stake in ads? You made me realize this because "cry over this" but I'm not in that industry at all and your sentence seemed to me like just an over-generalization made to justify your point of view. I then remembered all the time that I couldn't have read/watch/learned something if I didn't have ads in the past, simply because I couldn't convince my parents to use their credit card (for valid reason though). I remember all the time right I wouldn't have read/watch/learned simply because the risk of it being not worth it was too high even nowadays. I remember all the time that I currently have to simply trust the comments over an article because it's behind a paywall and I just can't subscribe to every news website. Actually I have a pretty big stake in this industry. I wouldn't have been the software engineer I am right now if it wasn't from the content that was subsidized by ads. The ones that made that content were also underage and were able to build a pretty big company out of it (Site du Zéro, they are now called OpenClassroom) that now employ an hundred employees (luckily they no longer depends on ads, but still it was what made them being able to breakthrough).
  - criddell 8y ago
    Many of us don't have a particular problem with advertising in general, it's mostly the surveillance aspect of it. Your parents wouldn't or couldn't pay for things you wanted access to. Do you think they would have been okay with you trading your privacy instead?
    - jordigh 8y ago
      And many of us do have a problem with advertising in general. Most people don't want to see ads. At best we put up with them or manage to ignore them. Very rarely, do we actively seek out ads. Usually we only do that when we get lots of entertainment from the ad itself, as in the Lego Movie There has to be a better way to make sure the internet doesn't starve than ads, and not seeing that way doesn't mean that ads and manipulative marketing are inevitable.
teawrecks 8y ago
But...unless the government is intervening, isn't this just capitalism at work?
- anoncake 8y ago
  Does using/developing AdNauseam somehow involve profit-seeking? Wage labour? Private property? What's capitalistic about it?

a_imho 8y ago

I can't believe we've accepted the term "ad fraud" for this Did we?

jordigh 8y ago
It's being used elsewhere in this thread unchallenged. I felt compelled to challenge it.

shittyadmin 8y ago

Click fraud is typically only used when you're the one receiving profits from the fake clicks. In which case fraud seems pretty appropriate.

jordigh 8y ago
That's not the way it is being used elsewhere in this thread. They're calling what Ad Nauseam does "ad fraud" and are saying how easy it is to spot and fight against.
- Wohlf 8y ago
  Probably because the posters are working in an industry where click fraud is a serious business concern.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  Can you point to an example of such a comment? I don't see anyone saying that what AdNauseum does is ad fraud, just that it's detectable via the same mechanisms that detect ad fraud.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I can't believe we've accepted the term "ad fraud" for this “Ad fraud” is widely accepted when automated clicks are done by or on behalf of someone getting paid for the ads (the site owner selling ad space, usually, as the advertising network, if they were going to defraud the party buying ad placement, would just as easily invent false numbers that employ automated clickers to juice their own stats.) Other than that, no.

Ajedi32 8y ago

I don't see anyone here saying that using AdNauseam is ad fraud (unless you're visiting your own site with it). What the other comments you seem to be referring to are saying is that AdNauseam's behavior is similar to ad fraud, and therefore detectable via the same mechanisms that detect ad fraud. The term itself is perfectly reasonable. If you're intentionally clicking ads on your own site in order to mislead the advertising provider about your CTR and thus generate more revenue for yourself, that's clearly fraud.