71–80 of 282 posts
I feel like this would be better if it didn't click every ad, but had some sort of method (even if it was random) to pick ads.
https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/blob/master/src/js/adn/co...
I'm out on this. 1. They say it's legally not click fraud. To me it sounds like regular fraud: "deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right". I'm not concerned with breaking the law I just don't want to act in the spirit of it. 2. This could hurt small startups that are very carefully managing an ad budget. They say the market will adjust, but until it does small startups take…
1) If other people want to write contracts with each other that obligate them to do things for each other in response to bit patterns generated by my computer, that's none of my business. Legally, you might get Tortious Interference pass the laugh test, but who is interfering? The author (if they're cautious) isn't running it, so you're likely looking at RIAA-style fishing for IP addresses for random people who insta…
I suppose it wouldn't. You probably wouldn't even need to leave home more than once - to read beacon data with a BLE debugging tool like nRF Connect. BLE beacons are broadcasting devices - they don't talk with your phone, they're just shouting "I'm here"! All data the vendor can get must come from an application on your phone. Hence, just capture what it's sending, fire up a VM cluster and have fun.
Hell, I might try doing that one of these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. You're objectively wrong. If that were the case, I would be blocked from accessing the content without "paying the price". The situation is instead clearly analogous to a "pay what you feel it is worth" model. The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place…
Content creators have gone with not blocking blockers up until now because it's not an issue. As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts. Once or twice in all your years online you have agreed to an alternate funding method and you think that is sustainable for content creators? You can make a lot of arguments for ad blocking. I ad block because it slows my computer down. Maki…
It works fabulously as supplemental income for talented artisnal content creators who make their content because they care. They'll probably still need a day job like the rest of us, but there's a good chance people will hire them for those same skills that make them great content creators, whether they write interesting blogs or make neat-o electronics projects or produce great art or whatever.
I'm all about supporting inspired human creation. Maybe we'll implement basic minimum income and some of these people can safely dedicate their life to their talent, and inspire others along the way?
It can't possibly sustain content farms like buzzfeed. I consider this to be a great positive, and wish buzzfeed as swift and impactful a cratering as possible.
Good. I'm done being nice to advertisers. They are actively poisoning the internet in more ways than one. They had their chance to work out better ways to advertise, and they instead redoubled assaults on attention. This is getting installed on all of my browsers on all of my PCs. If your startup is advertising based, find a different model, or do without my business. I have no obligation to help you fund yourself or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Making the claim that you ad block because your attention is more valuable though is a joke. It's not a joke. It's avoiding death by thousand cuts. Time is literally the most valuable commodity we have. Anything you do to waste someone's time - like displaying obtrusive, annoying ads - is in my books an act of aggression.
If your time is so important why are you wasting it visiting pages with ads? >There's enough better content available for free and without ads Surely you'd just stick with the better content that doesn't use ads all the time right?
Because I get linked to them. Also, social objects - other people are visiting those pages, so I have to check them out too in order to participate in the conversation.
Also, YouTube.
> Surely you'd just stick with the better content that doesn't use ads all the time right?
Yeah, and I mostly do.
They say it silently clicks all the ads in the background - doesn't that just help them? They want clicks right? Obviously the customer wants legitimate leads but the advertiser the guy we hate doesn't care if the clicks are legit or not. For him the more clicks the better, no?
Good. I'm done being nice to advertisers. They are actively poisoning the internet in more ways than one. They had their chance to work out better ways to advertise, and they instead redoubled assaults on attention. This is getting installed on all of my browsers on all of my PCs. If your startup is advertising based, find a different model, or do without my business. I have no obligation to help you fund yourself or…
clicking all the advertisers links seems like an awfully nice thing to do for them, assuming they're paid per click
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't mean it's not vandalism, too. The fact that no property is actually destroyed does mean that, but I think there is a qualitative difference between blocking ads and attempting to swamp ad-pricing signals with injected noise.
It's my bandwidth, my browser. I'll automate clicking any goddamn thing I like. Don't like it? Don't serve it.
(Now, generating new links with a for loop would be a crime, at least in the US, so I definitely won't do that.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. You're objectively wrong. If that were the case, I would be blocked from accessing the content without "paying the price". The situation is instead clearly analogous to a "pay what you feel it is worth" model. The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place…
Content creators have gone with not blocking blockers up until now because it's not an issue. As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts. Once or twice in all your years online you have agreed to an alternate funding method and you think that is sustainable for content creators? You can make a lot of arguments for ad blocking. I ad block because it slows my computer down. Maki…
That seems incredibly tone deaf. Advertisers should be working on fixing the problems. Get rid of tracking, get rid of scripts, make promises about acceptable ad size and latency and every year reduce those numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Advertisers will just lower their bids, so it mostly hurts the publishers of the websites you visit. ... who will then have to revert to a more sane monetization scheme, which doesn't mess with their visitors' data.
I doubt it. More likely, who will progress to even more insane monetization schemes...