5 ms·
Isn't the purpose to cause ad networks to lower fee payments due to rampant click fraud and thus to destroy the business model?
by nvy 3y ago
Isn't the purpose to cause ad networks to lower fee payments due to rampant click fraud and thus to destroy the business model?
- paulpauper 3y agoThe problem is it does not destroy the model of annoying ads, it jsut makes it less profitable for publishers. It works like an auction, which is that advertisers place bids. assuming there are lots of fraudulent clicks, advertisers would notice a lower conversion rate, which would hurt ROI and advertisers would adjust by lowering bids, so the problem sorta corrects itself by adjusting to a new equilibrium of profitability. the only one hurt are the publishers and ad networks like meta/alphabet who earn less. but the evidence only shows higher ad rates despite this, not less.
- nvy 3y agoI don't personally run this extension (because I've read that the fraudulent clicks are easy to detect) but supposing that the clicks from this extension were both pervasive and indistinguishable from real clicks, it would seem to me that that would cause ROI to asymptotically approach zero which would result in the collapse of ad networks as a viable business model.
- cabaalis 3y agoI think one should be careful using the term "click fraud" in this context. Someone who installs this extension doesn't in my mind qualify to be defrauding anyone. There is no contract in place, it isn't against the law to express interest in a product, and there's no technical controls being breached illegally as the browser is just sending a request to a server.
- brightlancer 3y ago> Someone who installs this extension doesn't in my mind qualify to be defrauding anyone. Bluntly, it doesn't matter what you or I think -- what matters is what politicians, police, prosecutors and judges think. I don't see anything on the main github page that says the extension is intended to cause harm to the advertisers or the website, but IME governments have often not cared. And when 1M people in a country install the extension, are they acting independently or as a group? One person protesting may be legal, 1M organizing may not be protected.
- nradov 3y agoStop being vague. Which specific law do you think that might violate. Provide a citation.
- ac29 3y agoThe U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual Section 941.18 U.S.C. 1343 cites these as the key elements of wire fraud: “1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; 2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; 3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and 4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used.”
- brokenmachine 3y agoSince the ad agencies are the ones benefiting monetarily from this alleged fraud, would that not mean that they would be bringing about a case against themselves?