4 ms·

> If bot operators are being forced to use botnets, I'd say the solution is working very well. If ad-fraud goes from "We accidentally ran these 'indexing-bots'

> If bot operators are being forced to use botnets, I'd say the solution is working very well. If ad-fraud goes from "We accidentally ran these 'indexing-bots' against some websites, causing some counters to be off. Sorry about that!" to "We deployed our code to run on stolen or hacked machines through botnets paid for in crypto on the dark web", you've moved from legally gray to clearly illegal. I can see no down-sides with such a move.

jefftk 4y ago
I'm not objecting to making the move (definitely do it) but about selling it as a "solution" when it's really beginning a perpetual fight. People often don't recognize that they are in an adversarial situation, where taking a step that looks like it solves the problem does much less than you expect because other people will later counter your work.
- lucideer 4y ago
  > selling it as a "solution" when it's really beginning a perpetual fight If your qualifying definition of "solution" is "magic bullet" then there are no solutions. Every solution is a component in the perpetual fight.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    Only in adversarial games, and most of engineering isn't adversarial. Enabling compression on your website or designing your UI to make things clear to users give real improvements that don't degrade with time. Other sorts of improvements like optimizing your JS delivery or your server specs decay with time, because people make incidental changes elsewhere, but this is a slow process. Adversarial situations are very different because there's a motivated person on the other end trying to counter what you're doing, and gains are especially short-lived.
    - lucideer 4y ago
      I don't really follow any of this comment. Are you saying perfect solutions are possible on non-adversarial situations?
      - jefftk 4y ago
        I like to divide solutions into four approximate categories based on what sort of scenario they're applying to: 1. Collaborative situations: your solution works better and better, because people notice and work with you. Ex: designing an icon or coining a word for a new concept; over time more and more people recognize it, use it, etc. 2. Indifferent situations: your solution continues working about the same, because it's not about interaction with others who adapt. Ex: enabling compression on HTML serving, inventing joist hangars, new cancer surgery technique. Most inventions and engineering is in this category. 3. Decay situations: your solution slowly stops working as well, because the world moves on. Ex: payroll software needs to be updated as payroll regulations change. 4. Adversarial situations: your solution quickly stops working well, because others are directly trying to counter your work. Ex: investing strategies, antibiotics, ad fraud, ad fraud detection. When you're evaluating a solution based on how it seems like it would work in the current world, thinking about how collaborative-vs-adversarial the situation is helps you predict what the full rollout of your solution would look like.
        lucideer 4y ago
        It's nice that you have a framework but you still haven't addressed my (I think fairly simple) question about how any of it applies here. I realise this probably comes of a little snarky but I've tried following your comments in good faith and it just seems like a very abstract hammer looking for a nail without really reading/listening to the quite literal/simple/not-very-abstract discussion being had here.
        jefftk 4y ago
        We started with EdwardDiego calling blocking cloud IPs "a simple solution to ad fraud" and me replying that because ad fraud is an adversarial situation this wouldn't be nearly as much of a solution as they seemed to think. Then, in our subthread it seemed to me like you were saying that it being adversarial doesn't matter, and wins are always ephemeral ("every solution is a component in the perpetual fight"). I responded by explaining how this varies by situation, with some where wins compound (cooperative) but that the adversarial nature of ad fraud shortens the lifetime of wins dramatically compared to other domains.
- bombcar 4y ago
  When you’re competitive it can be enough to be just a bit harder to crack than the competition. The bots may just choose another advertising platform as the target.
- nonasktell 4y ago
  Well it: -cuts their profits in half or more because they have to pay for the proxies(or if they own them they can't sell them since they need them) -it prevents most low skilled people from doing it -it prevents them from doing on it on an infinite scale, AWS have more than a 100 millions IPs, it's rare to see a grey market proxy provider with more than a few millions clean IPs, and it usually cost like 40 cents per IP, where it can be FREE on AWS You add basic protection against headless browsers, behavioral analysis etc...And now 99% of the people who can fool you are already making 6 figures in legitimate jobs and won't risk 10 years of jail to earn just a bit more money.
- cwkoss 4y ago
  I'd argue it's prosocial to mislead ad spenders into thinking they are reaching more humans than they actually are.

jefftk 4y ago

I'm not objecting to making the move (definitely do it) but about selling it as a "solution" when it's really beginning a perpetual fight. People often don't recognize that they are in an adversarial situation, where taking a step that looks like it solves the problem does much less than you expect because other people will later counter your work.

lucideer 4y ago
> selling it as a "solution" when it's really beginning a perpetual fight If your qualifying definition of "solution" is "magic bullet" then there are no solutions. Every solution is a component in the perpetual fight.
- jefftk 4y ago
  Only in adversarial games, and most of engineering isn't adversarial. Enabling compression on your website or designing your UI to make things clear to users give real improvements that don't degrade with time. Other sorts of improvements like optimizing your JS delivery or your server specs decay with time, because people make incidental changes elsewhere, but this is a slow process. Adversarial situations are very different because there's a motivated person on the other end trying to counter what you're doing, and gains are especially short-lived.
  - lucideer 4y ago
    I don't really follow any of this comment. Are you saying perfect solutions are possible on non-adversarial situations?
    - jefftk 4y ago
      I like to divide solutions into four approximate categories based on what sort of scenario they're applying to: 1. Collaborative situations: your solution works better and better, because people notice and work with you. Ex: designing an icon or coining a word for a new concept; over time more and more people recognize it, use it, etc. 2. Indifferent situations: your solution continues working about the same, because it's not about interaction with others who adapt. Ex: enabling compression on HTML serving, inventing joist hangars, new cancer surgery technique. Most inventions and engineering is in this category. 3. Decay situations: your solution slowly stops working as well, because the world moves on. Ex: payroll software needs to be updated as payroll regulations change. 4. Adversarial situations: your solution quickly stops working well, because others are directly trying to counter your work. Ex: investing strategies, antibiotics, ad fraud, ad fraud detection. When you're evaluating a solution based on how it seems like it would work in the current world, thinking about how collaborative-vs-adversarial the situation is helps you predict what the full rollout of your solution would look like.
      - lucideer 4y ago
        It's nice that you have a framework but you still haven't addressed my (I think fairly simple) question about how any of it applies here. I realise this probably comes of a little snarky but I've tried following your comments in good faith and it just seems like a very abstract hammer looking for a nail without really reading/listening to the quite literal/simple/not-very-abstract discussion being had here.
        jefftk 4y ago
        We started with EdwardDiego calling blocking cloud IPs "a simple solution to ad fraud" and me replying that because ad fraud is an adversarial situation this wouldn't be nearly as much of a solution as they seemed to think. Then, in our subthread it seemed to me like you were saying that it being adversarial doesn't matter, and wins are always ephemeral ("every solution is a component in the perpetual fight"). I responded by explaining how this varies by situation, with some where wins compound (cooperative) but that the adversarial nature of ad fraud shortens the lifetime of wins dramatically compared to other domains.
bombcar 4y ago
When you’re competitive it can be enough to be just a bit harder to crack than the competition. The bots may just choose another advertising platform as the target.
nonasktell 4y ago
Well it: -cuts their profits in half or more because they have to pay for the proxies(or if they own them they can't sell them since they need them) -it prevents most low skilled people from doing it -it prevents them from doing on it on an infinite scale, AWS have more than a 100 millions IPs, it's rare to see a grey market proxy provider with more than a few millions clean IPs, and it usually cost like 40 cents per IP, where it can be FREE on AWS You add basic protection against headless browsers, behavioral analysis etc...And now 99% of the people who can fool you are already making 6 figures in legitimate jobs and won't risk 10 years of jail to earn just a bit more money.
cwkoss 4y ago
I'd argue it's prosocial to mislead ad spenders into thinking they are reaching more humans than they actually are.