5 ms·

It's also illegal in many jurisdictions (e.g. in the US, viewed as a scheme to defraud advertisers by generating invalid clicks that cause financial harm, by de

by rvnx 9mo ago

It's also illegal in many jurisdictions (e.g. in the US, viewed as a scheme to defraud advertisers by generating invalid clicks that cause financial harm, by depleting their budgets and push them to spend for fake traffic), but in practice it's way easier to just blacklist that IP / user. The big networks filter such traffic, the small networks benefit from it. https://www.reddit.com/r/legal/comments/1pq6kgp/is_it_legal_to_trick_ads_into_thinking_they_are/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legal/comments/1pq6kgp/is_it_legal_... You may also get accidentally get your own website blacklisted or moved to a lower RPM tier, or provoke shadow-ban websites that you like to visit, or... generate more ad revenue for them.

Terretta 9mo ago
Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face. Any jurisdiction where this is supposedly illegal, it hasn't been court tested seriously.* Per your link: "What you're describing is essentially the extension AdNauseam. So far they have not had any legal troubles, but they technically could." That stance or an assertion it's not illegal is consistent throughout the thread, provided you aren't clicking your own ads. "The industry" thinks you shouldn't be allowed to fast forward your own VCR through an ad either. They can take a flying .. lesson. * Disclaimer: I don't know if that's true, but it sounds true.
- y-curious 9mo ago
  Telling me this is illegal has made me want to download it more. “IT IS ILLEGAL TO ATTACK THIS NONCONSENSUAL SPAM SIR”
  - Tor3 9mo ago
    Some years ago I was by chance listening to a radio program about advertising. They interviewed a marketing guy and he insisted that it was illegal for you to visit the bathroom or the kitchen while the ad was running (on TV or on the radio). Completely nuts.
    - dylan604 9mo ago
      That reminds me of the time I was flipping through TV channels and stopped in on TBN to see what color Jan's hair was going to be. Instead, I found Paul preaching about how anyone watching his programming and NOT sending him donations was stealing from him.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  You're not clicking the button, you're sending a known fraudulent request saying the ad was clicked, when the ad was not clicked
  - sharperguy 9mo ago
    I still wonder about that. I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't. The website operator does have such a contract and so cannot hire a bot farm to spam click the ads. If it's something that's been held up in court already then of course I have to accept it, but I can't say the reason seems immediately intuitive.
    - gruez 9mo ago
      >I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't. Charges of fraud doesn't require a contract to be in place. That's the whole point of criminal law, it's so that you don't need to add a "don't screw me over" clause to every interaction you make.
      - general1465 9mo ago
        How is that a fraud, when I don't get any money from the scheme?
        gruez 9mo ago
        Gaining something isn't required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Civil_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Civil_fraud
        general1465 9mo ago
        By this logic, vandalism would be fraud too.
- gruez 9mo ago
  >Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face. No, the illegal-ness doesn't come from the clicking, it comes from the fact you're clicking with the intention of defrauding someone. That's also why filling out a credit card application isn't illegal, but filling out the same credit card application with phony details is.
  - rvnx 9mo ago
    Even one of the users here above mentions the malicious intent: > I hate advertisers so I'm gonna get back at them by making them pay more.
  - _factor 9mo ago
    The intent isn’t to defraud. The intent is to curb their uninvited data collection and anti-utility influence on the internet. You’re not defrauding anyone if you have your extension click all ads in the background and make a personalized list for you that you can choose to review. The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud.
    - gruez 9mo ago
      >The intent isn’t to defraud. The intent is to curb their uninvited data collection and anti-utility influence on the internet. How's this any different than going around and filling out fake credit applications to stop "uninvited data collection" by banks/credit bureaus or whatever? >The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud. You're still harming the business, so my guess would be something like tortious interference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
      - _factor 9mo ago
        In a credit application there is a signature and binding contract. If I fill in false information knowingly, the intent is clear and written. If you send me an unsolicited mailer with a microchip that tracks my eyes and face as I read it, you’ve already pushed too far. To then claim my using a robot to read it for me is fraud ignores the invasion of privacy you’ve already instituted without my express consent (digital ads are this). It’s not fraud if it’s self-defense from corporate overreach.
- dhruv3006 9mo ago
  Whats the case in EU? Any idea?
- WarmWash 9mo ago
  >Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face. To be fair, you put it in your own face, by visiting the site...
  - rvnx 9mo ago
    I mean, (not to you, as we go in the same direction, in general), just block it. The goal of Adnauseam was to hurt Google, and other big adnetworks, from what I understand. By blocking: -> Advertiser is not harmed -> For the adnetwork: No ad revenue -> Publisher is not harmed -> Pages load faster --> Google is earning less (if this is part of your ideological fight) and you get rewarded with a better experience, and you are legally safe == With fake clicks: -> Advertiser is harmed -> Publisher is harmed -> Adnetwork is okayish with the situation (to a certain point) -> You hurt websites and products that you like (or would statistically like) --> Google is accidentally earning more revenue (at least temporarily, until you get shadow-banned), your computer / page loads slows down and you enter a legally gray area. (+ the side-note below: clicking on every ads leak your browsing history because in the URL there is a unique tracking ID that connects to the page you are viewing)
    - freitasm 9mo ago
      "-> Publisher is not harmed" How? Publishers do need revenue and this can deprive them of this income.
      - rvnx 9mo ago
        Fair enough. I took the principle that revenue = 0 if no conversion, but in reality this is not true at all.
        freitasm 9mo ago
        No, it's not, as there are ads that pay per impression, not click.
pbronez 9mo ago
Seriously? What laws catch it out?
- rvnx 9mo ago
  You deliberate harm and financial damage using a computer bot. Almost all countries have provisions where you can be sued for any type of damage you cause and be asked to repair it (a minima at the civil level). Big ones detect it, so they don't care to sue. Small ones benefit, so they don't sue. This is your main protection, there is nothing to squeeze from a single guy. Even if you get him to pay you back the fraud, then what ? It costs more in legal fees. Still, it's such an odd concept to self-inflict yourself such; it's way better to just block the ads than to be tagged as a bot and get Recaptcha-ed or Turnstiled more frequently.
  - malfist 9mo ago
    How did I cause financial damage? I didn't charge anybody anything. I didn't pay anybody anything. I agreed to no terms and conditions
    - rvnx 9mo ago
      With your logic this is legal: > One public Firebase file. One day. $98,000. How it happened and how it could happen to you. https://www.reddit.com/r/googlecloud/comments/1kg9icb/one_public_firebase_file_one_day_98000_how_it/ https://www.reddit.com/r/googlecloud/comments/1kg9icb/one_pu... "It's just a script that makes a loop, I didn't charge anybody anything, I didn't pay anybody anything. I agreed to no terms and conditions". It's a very harmful practice to intentionally try to hurt companies, when you can just block what you don't like.
      - zenethian 9mo ago
        Okay but hurting consumers by tracking everything they do is totally okay? Companies aren’t people. Fuck companies.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
infecto 9mo ago
Wrong. There is no law saying you cannot click every link on a website within your browser. It would not only be impossible to prove but also entirely wrong interpretation of existing laws. Now if you had an AdWords account and ran a botnet that visited your property and clicked ads, that’s fraud.
- pixl97 9mo ago
  >It would not only be impossible to prove I mean if you had an extension that did it I don't see why it would be impossible. And with an extension for that purpose it shows intent.
  - infecto 9mo ago
    Back up a bit. AdNauseam and similar tools are not illegal. The only real avenues would be violation of ToS, fraud, computer abuse or similar. For an individual running this on their home PC for their own use it would be a real challenge for anyone of any size to prove harm. Now like I already said, if you are running a botnet clicking on your ads that is entirely a different story. So tell us what does having the extension installed prove?
Larrikin 9mo ago
You're all over this thread spreading misinformation. AdNauseam has been around since 2014. It is specifically banned in the Chrome store so Google knows of it's existence. If you check the wikipedia page you'll see that they have landed in the press and taken multiple actions against the extension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdNauseam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdNauseam Usually when it's brought up people say it doesn't work or try to spread fear that it is illegal. Google banning them but taking no action otherwise indicates to me and the thousands who use it that it is in fact effective and Google has no other recourse other than their control over the most popular browser.
bmandale 9mo ago
click fraud consists of the person who runs a website themselves clicking, running bots to click, paying someone else to click, etc ads on their own website. it becomes fraud first because they have contractually agreed not to do that, and second because they are materially benefiting from it. an unaligned third party clicking (etc) on ads has neither of those conditions being true, and hence isn't fraud or otherwise illegal.
- rvnx 9mo ago
  Doubtful. If you intentionally loop-download large files or fake requests on websites that you don't like, in order to create big CDN charges for them, then what ? Without reaching the threshold of Denial of Service, just sneakily growing it. Nobody benefits, except for the weird idea of the pleasure of harming people, still illegal.
  - infecto 9mo ago
    You are just wrong on many levels and keep repeating the same mistruths.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
  - reaperducer 9mo ago
    Doubtful Not doubtful at all. He literally laid out the definition of click fraud for you. As someone who ran ads on web sites as far back as 1995, that has been the term the industry has used forever. Replying with a dismissive "doubtful" demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.
    - rvnx 9mo ago
      Yes, doubtful it is not fraud, just because you didn’t sign a contract does not prevent it from being fraud. And it is fine to use the terms click fraud when you conduct artificial clicks with the intent: Examples: https://integralads.com/insider/what-is-click-fraud/#:~:text=Simply%20put%2C%20click%20fraud%20involves%20the%20deceptive,inflate%20advertising%20costs%20or%20mislead%20performance%20metrics. https://integralads.com/insider/what-is-click-fraud/#:~:text... One of the top leading company of traffic filtering is literally using these words to describe that. Other users even 10 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13328628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13328628 + sources from court: > The opinion states: “click fraud” can occur when “either a (natural) person, automated script, or computer program, sometimes referred to as a `bot,’ simulates the click activity of a legitimate user by clicking on the Program Data displayed, but without having an actual interest in its subject matter or content.” Etc
_DeadFred_ 9mo ago
A plugin that does pre-fetch is illegal?
reaperducer 9mo ago
It's also illegal in many jurisdictions (e.g. in the US Never in the history of HN has a [citation] been so [needed]. And from an actual lawyer, not just some rando cosplaying M&A in his mom's basement.
- rvnx 9mo ago
  Could be interesting to get your perspective
  - reaperducer 9mo ago
    I disagree. I'm neither a lawyer nor a legal expert, and I don't pretend to be either on the internet.
snarfy 9mo ago
A "scheme to defraud advertisers", how infuriating. Advertisers are stealing my time and attention. Why is this not illegal also then?
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

by rvnx 9mo ago

Terretta 9mo ago

Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face. Any jurisdiction where this is supposedly illegal, it hasn't been court tested seriously.* Per your link: "What you're describing is essentially the extension AdNauseam. So far they have not had any legal troubles, but they technically could." That stance or an assertion it's not illegal is consistent throughout the thread, provided you aren't clicking your own ads. "The industry" thinks you shouldn't be allowed to fast forward your own VCR through an ad either. They can take a flying .. lesson. * Disclaimer: I don't know if that's true, but it sounds true.

y-curious 9mo ago
Telling me this is illegal has made me want to download it more. “IT IS ILLEGAL TO ATTACK THIS NONCONSENSUAL SPAM SIR”
- Tor3 9mo ago
  Some years ago I was by chance listening to a radio program about advertising. They interviewed a marketing guy and he insisted that it was illegal for you to visit the bathroom or the kitchen while the ad was running (on TV or on the radio). Completely nuts.
  - dylan604 9mo ago
    That reminds me of the time I was flipping through TV channels and stopped in on TBN to see what color Jan's hair was going to be. Instead, I found Paul preaching about how anyone watching his programming and NOT sending him donations was stealing from him.
direwolf20 9mo ago
You're not clicking the button, you're sending a known fraudulent request saying the ad was clicked, when the ad was not clicked
- sharperguy 9mo ago
  I still wonder about that. I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't. The website operator does have such a contract and so cannot hire a bot farm to spam click the ads. If it's something that's been held up in court already then of course I have to accept it, but I can't say the reason seems immediately intuitive.
  - gruez 9mo ago
    >I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't. Charges of fraud doesn't require a contract to be in place. That's the whole point of criminal law, it's so that you don't need to add a "don't screw me over" clause to every interaction you make.
    - general1465 9mo ago
      How is that a fraud, when I don't get any money from the scheme?
      - gruez 9mo ago
        Gaining something isn't required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Civil_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Civil_fraud
        general1465 9mo ago
        By this logic, vandalism would be fraud too.
gruez 9mo ago
>Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face. No, the illegal-ness doesn't come from the clicking, it comes from the fact you're clicking with the intention of defrauding someone. That's also why filling out a credit card application isn't illegal, but filling out the same credit card application with phony details is.
- rvnx 9mo ago
  Even one of the users here above mentions the malicious intent: > I hate advertisers so I'm gonna get back at them by making them pay more.
- _factor 9mo ago
  The intent isn’t to defraud. The intent is to curb their uninvited data collection and anti-utility influence on the internet. You’re not defrauding anyone if you have your extension click all ads in the background and make a personalized list for you that you can choose to review. The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud.
  - gruez 9mo ago
    >The intent isn’t to defraud. The intent is to curb their uninvited data collection and anti-utility influence on the internet. How's this any different than going around and filling out fake credit applications to stop "uninvited data collection" by banks/credit bureaus or whatever? >The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud. You're still harming the business, so my guess would be something like tortious interference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
    - _factor 9mo ago
      In a credit application there is a signature and binding contract. If I fill in false information knowingly, the intent is clear and written. If you send me an unsolicited mailer with a microchip that tracks my eyes and face as I read it, you’ve already pushed too far. To then claim my using a robot to read it for me is fraud ignores the invasion of privacy you’ve already instituted without my express consent (digital ads are this). It’s not fraud if it’s self-defense from corporate overreach.
dhruv3006 9mo ago
Whats the case in EU? Any idea?
WarmWash 9mo ago
>Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face. To be fair, you put it in your own face, by visiting the site...
- rvnx 9mo ago
  I mean, (not to you, as we go in the same direction, in general), just block it. The goal of Adnauseam was to hurt Google, and other big adnetworks, from what I understand. By blocking: -> Advertiser is not harmed -> For the adnetwork: No ad revenue -> Publisher is not harmed -> Pages load faster --> Google is earning less (if this is part of your ideological fight) and you get rewarded with a better experience, and you are legally safe == With fake clicks: -> Advertiser is harmed -> Publisher is harmed -> Adnetwork is okayish with the situation (to a certain point) -> You hurt websites and products that you like (or would statistically like) --> Google is accidentally earning more revenue (at least temporarily, until you get shadow-banned), your computer / page loads slows down and you enter a legally gray area. (+ the side-note below: clicking on every ads leak your browsing history because in the URL there is a unique tracking ID that connects to the page you are viewing)
  - freitasm 9mo ago
    "-> Publisher is not harmed" How? Publishers do need revenue and this can deprive them of this income.
    - rvnx 9mo ago
      Fair enough. I took the principle that revenue = 0 if no conversion, but in reality this is not true at all.
      - freitasm 9mo ago
        No, it's not, as there are ads that pay per impression, not click.

pbronez 9mo ago

Seriously? What laws catch it out?

rvnx 9mo ago
You deliberate harm and financial damage using a computer bot. Almost all countries have provisions where you can be sued for any type of damage you cause and be asked to repair it (a minima at the civil level). Big ones detect it, so they don't care to sue. Small ones benefit, so they don't sue. This is your main protection, there is nothing to squeeze from a single guy. Even if you get him to pay you back the fraud, then what ? It costs more in legal fees. Still, it's such an odd concept to self-inflict yourself such; it's way better to just block the ads than to be tagged as a bot and get Recaptcha-ed or Turnstiled more frequently.
- malfist 9mo ago
  How did I cause financial damage? I didn't charge anybody anything. I didn't pay anybody anything. I agreed to no terms and conditions
  - rvnx 9mo ago
    With your logic this is legal: > One public Firebase file. One day. $98,000. How it happened and how it could happen to you. https://www.reddit.com/r/googlecloud/comments/1kg9icb/one_public_firebase_file_one_day_98000_how_it/ https://www.reddit.com/r/googlecloud/comments/1kg9icb/one_pu... "It's just a script that makes a loop, I didn't charge anybody anything, I didn't pay anybody anything. I agreed to no terms and conditions". It's a very harmful practice to intentionally try to hurt companies, when you can just block what you don't like.
    - zenethian 9mo ago
      Okay but hurting consumers by tracking everything they do is totally okay? Companies aren’t people. Fuck companies.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

infecto 9mo ago

Wrong. There is no law saying you cannot click every link on a website within your browser. It would not only be impossible to prove but also entirely wrong interpretation of existing laws. Now if you had an AdWords account and ran a botnet that visited your property and clicked ads, that’s fraud.

pixl97 9mo ago
>It would not only be impossible to prove I mean if you had an extension that did it I don't see why it would be impossible. And with an extension for that purpose it shows intent.
- infecto 9mo ago
  Back up a bit. AdNauseam and similar tools are not illegal. The only real avenues would be violation of ToS, fraud, computer abuse or similar. For an individual running this on their home PC for their own use it would be a real challenge for anyone of any size to prove harm. Now like I already said, if you are running a botnet clicking on your ads that is entirely a different story. So tell us what does having the extension installed prove?

Larrikin 9mo ago

You're all over this thread spreading misinformation. AdNauseam has been around since 2014. It is specifically banned in the Chrome store so Google knows of it's existence. If you check the wikipedia page you'll see that they have landed in the press and taken multiple actions against the extension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdNauseam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdNauseam Usually when it's brought up people say it doesn't work or try to spread fear that it is illegal. Google banning them but taking no action otherwise indicates to me and the thousands who use it that it is in fact effective and Google has no other recourse other than their control over the most popular browser.

bmandale 9mo ago

click fraud consists of the person who runs a website themselves clicking, running bots to click, paying someone else to click, etc ads on their own website. it becomes fraud first because they have contractually agreed not to do that, and second because they are materially benefiting from it. an unaligned third party clicking (etc) on ads has neither of those conditions being true, and hence isn't fraud or otherwise illegal.

rvnx 9mo ago
Doubtful. If you intentionally loop-download large files or fake requests on websites that you don't like, in order to create big CDN charges for them, then what ? Without reaching the threshold of Denial of Service, just sneakily growing it. Nobody benefits, except for the weird idea of the pleasure of harming people, still illegal.
- infecto 9mo ago
  You are just wrong on many levels and keep repeating the same mistruths.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- reaperducer 9mo ago
  Doubtful Not doubtful at all. He literally laid out the definition of click fraud for you. As someone who ran ads on web sites as far back as 1995, that has been the term the industry has used forever. Replying with a dismissive "doubtful" demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.
  - rvnx 9mo ago
    Yes, doubtful it is not fraud, just because you didn’t sign a contract does not prevent it from being fraud. And it is fine to use the terms click fraud when you conduct artificial clicks with the intent: Examples: https://integralads.com/insider/what-is-click-fraud/#:~:text=Simply%20put%2C%20click%20fraud%20involves%20the%20deceptive,inflate%20advertising%20costs%20or%20mislead%20performance%20metrics. https://integralads.com/insider/what-is-click-fraud/#:~:text... One of the top leading company of traffic filtering is literally using these words to describe that. Other users even 10 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13328628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13328628 + sources from court: > The opinion states: “click fraud” can occur when “either a (natural) person, automated script, or computer program, sometimes referred to as a `bot,’ simulates the click activity of a legitimate user by clicking on the Program Data displayed, but without having an actual interest in its subject matter or content.” Etc

_DeadFred_ 9mo ago

A plugin that does pre-fetch is illegal?

reaperducer 9mo ago

It's also illegal in many jurisdictions (e.g. in the US Never in the history of HN has a [citation] been so [needed]. And from an actual lawyer, not just some rando cosplaying M&A in his mom's basement.

rvnx 9mo ago
Could be interesting to get your perspective
- reaperducer 9mo ago
  I disagree. I'm neither a lawyer nor a legal expert, and I don't pretend to be either on the internet.

snarfy 9mo ago

A "scheme to defraud advertisers", how infuriating. Advertisers are stealing my time and attention. Why is this not illegal also then?

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]