5 ms·

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.*

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
        Vandalism involves making material misrepresentations?
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 8mo ago
        No, it's not, as there are ads that pay per impression, not click.

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
        Vandalism involves making material misrepresentations?

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 8mo ago
      No, it's not, as there are ads that pay per impression, not click.