4 ms·

“click fraud”? That is very very far fetched. I’m just following links your website serves me. If you don’t like it you don’t have to serve your ads to me.

by aeyes 3y ago

badloginagain 3y ago
How "far fetched" this is from click fraud is the central argument, and I can easily see a range of arguments from both sides. On one hand, distributing and marketing a tool that is explicitly designed to harm trackers can be seen- ie lobbied- as fraud. On the other, this isn't a targeted campaign of misclicking, this is essentially random noise on a user by user basis. At scale though, this fucks with a whole lotta peoples paychecks.
- nradov 3y ago
  This tool doesn't in any way meet the legal definition of fraud. Any if everyone working on online advertising loses their paychecks then that is an acceptable outcome.
  - beachy 3y ago
    Yep, people toss the word fraud around, and lawyers love to use it to scare the shit out of the opposition, but it's a very high bar to meet legally. An automated tool that clicked randomly on web page elements for no financial gain to the user or supplier of said tool would in no way reach the threshold of fraud. Obligatory IANAL.
- j33zusjuice 3y ago
  Except a few walled gardens, like search and social media (FB and Google do not share much of your data with advertisers, and nearly none with other adtech companies), ads are bought through real-time bidding. And the bid is paid regardless of how you respond to the ad. The majority of ads are bought this way, so your click does not harm the advertisers whose ad would otherwise have been blocked. This could impact the relative value of the publisher’s website, but the industry in general is not overly inhibited by ad-blocking, so I don’t think this extension would have much impact in any sense.
chomp 3y ago
It's all fun and games until Google gets upset and locks you out of your gmail.
- jethro_tell 3y ago
  Well, don't use Gmail, or use a domain that you can move to any provider and keep a backup of you're email. If you put yourself in a place where someone can take everything from you than it's a real risk that they might.
  - shortrounddev2 3y ago
    registrars can take your domain if they don't like you
    - jethro_tell 3y ago
      Take your domain or refuse to host it? This is true, but it's a lot harder to piss of a registrar than someone like google that has its fingers in all sorts of pies. Your registrar doesn't necessarily care if you're running and ad blocker or if Google thinks your account should be suspendeded because they don't like your app in the play store.
    - hiatus 3y ago
      Do you have an example in mind that is not a government enforcement action?
      - shortrounddev2 3y ago
        Stormfront has had its domain name taken away by its registrar, and I believe kiwifarms did as well (cloudflare says they provided ddos protection but not hosting, but other sites I see claim that cloudflare was also their dns provider)
  - rpbiwer2 3y ago
    > use a domain that you can move to any provider and keep a backup of you're email. And which ones are those? Once I've selected the right provider, how do I reliably implement my backups? > If you put yourself in a place where someone can take everything from you than it's a real risk that they might. I'll just go ahead and stop using every major software product created in the last decade. Despite my sarcasm you're not wrong, I agree completely with what you're saying. But to follow your advice is not easy, especially for the average user. IMO it's a problem with the way software is made, and while many of us are vaguely aware of the problem, there's been little progress towards solving it.
andrewflnr 3y ago
It's only far fetched if you look at it rationally. Whereas if ads pay your salary, it's obviously click fraud. GP is describing an angle that some people might take for personal benefit, not an actual argument.
- j33zusjuice 3y ago
  It’s not obvious even if ads pay your salary. Adtech is mostly real-time bidding, and the bid is for the impression, not the conversion. Adtech wins either way.
BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
YouTube refers to it as "invalid click activity" when they demonitize channels for it. In some instances, fans of one channel/creator have been known to brigade the channel of someone they don't like and click the ads many times, which YouTube will assume is evidence of the target trying to artificially inflate their own revenue.

“click fraud”? That is very very far fetched. I’m just following links your website serves me. If you don’t like it you don’t have to serve your ads to me.

by aeyes 3y ago

“click fraud”? That is very very far fetched. I’m just following links your website serves me. If you don’t like it you don’t have to serve your ads to me.

badloginagain 3y ago

How "far fetched" this is from click fraud is the central argument, and I can easily see a range of arguments from both sides. On one hand, distributing and marketing a tool that is explicitly designed to harm trackers can be seen- ie lobbied- as fraud. On the other, this isn't a targeted campaign of misclicking, this is essentially random noise on a user by user basis. At scale though, this fucks with a whole lotta peoples paychecks.

nradov 3y ago
This tool doesn't in any way meet the legal definition of fraud. Any if everyone working on online advertising loses their paychecks then that is an acceptable outcome.
- beachy 3y ago
  Yep, people toss the word fraud around, and lawyers love to use it to scare the shit out of the opposition, but it's a very high bar to meet legally. An automated tool that clicked randomly on web page elements for no financial gain to the user or supplier of said tool would in no way reach the threshold of fraud. Obligatory IANAL.
j33zusjuice 3y ago
Except a few walled gardens, like search and social media (FB and Google do not share much of your data with advertisers, and nearly none with other adtech companies), ads are bought through real-time bidding. And the bid is paid regardless of how you respond to the ad. The majority of ads are bought this way, so your click does not harm the advertisers whose ad would otherwise have been blocked. This could impact the relative value of the publisher’s website, but the industry in general is not overly inhibited by ad-blocking, so I don’t think this extension would have much impact in any sense.

chomp 3y ago

It's all fun and games until Google gets upset and locks you out of your gmail.

jethro_tell 3y ago
Well, don't use Gmail, or use a domain that you can move to any provider and keep a backup of you're email. If you put yourself in a place where someone can take everything from you than it's a real risk that they might.
- shortrounddev2 3y ago
  registrars can take your domain if they don't like you
  - jethro_tell 3y ago
    Take your domain or refuse to host it? This is true, but it's a lot harder to piss of a registrar than someone like google that has its fingers in all sorts of pies. Your registrar doesn't necessarily care if you're running and ad blocker or if Google thinks your account should be suspendeded because they don't like your app in the play store.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    Do you have an example in mind that is not a government enforcement action?
    - shortrounddev2 3y ago
      Stormfront has had its domain name taken away by its registrar, and I believe kiwifarms did as well (cloudflare says they provided ddos protection but not hosting, but other sites I see claim that cloudflare was also their dns provider)
- rpbiwer2 3y ago
  > use a domain that you can move to any provider and keep a backup of you're email. And which ones are those? Once I've selected the right provider, how do I reliably implement my backups? > If you put yourself in a place where someone can take everything from you than it's a real risk that they might. I'll just go ahead and stop using every major software product created in the last decade. Despite my sarcasm you're not wrong, I agree completely with what you're saying. But to follow your advice is not easy, especially for the average user. IMO it's a problem with the way software is made, and while many of us are vaguely aware of the problem, there's been little progress towards solving it.

andrewflnr 3y ago

It's only far fetched if you look at it rationally. Whereas if ads pay your salary, it's obviously click fraud. GP is describing an angle that some people might take for personal benefit, not an actual argument.

j33zusjuice 3y ago
It’s not obvious even if ads pay your salary. Adtech is mostly real-time bidding, and the bid is for the impression, not the conversion. Adtech wins either way.

BHSPitMonkey 3y ago

YouTube refers to it as "invalid click activity" when they demonitize channels for it. In some instances, fans of one channel/creator have been known to brigade the channel of someone they don't like and click the ads many times, which YouTube will assume is evidence of the target trying to artificially inflate their own revenue.