Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 282 posts

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#221

Post by elementalest »

gfody wrote: post #74
1propionyl wrote: post #56

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

Well it would be nice if you could whitelist sites you think are worth the clicks. So, sites you like get a lot more click revenue, because you clicked every add. While the desired effect of diluting PPC would be reduced, you wouldn't be giving revenue to sites that you don't think are worth it.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#222

Post by dispose13432 »

literallycancer wrote: post #157
dispose13432 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>social objects - other people are visiting those pages, so I have to check them out too in order to participate in the conversation. So maybe that's the cost of not seeing ads, you don't get to participate in conversations. It's like if Stallman would, instead of making GNU, hack into MS and put the source online because he "just has to". Most of the time, taking a moral stand requires sacrifice.

You seem to imply there is something questionable about blocking ads. The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker. It's a lower cost than the attention spent on ads, so I block them. Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.

>Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.

You own your machine but not the text. Right now it's still somewhat hypothetical, but what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content. Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"?

How are adblock-blockers (which are counterbalanced by adblock-blockers-blockers by adblockers) different?

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#223

Post by dispose13432 »

235951 wrote: post #206
dispose13432 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Clicking a link isn't harassment. You are making people lose money (not the malware adnetworks, not the trackers, but the guy buying advertisement) to prove a point to the ad-network (which is actually making money off this), I consider it close to harassment.

No, the advertisers are choosing not to pay the content creators. By blocking or using auto clickers the users are only choosing to not reveal the personal information that is sold by the content creator to the advertisers(even if the content creators don't get to see it, or cant make use of it). On tv and in movies the prestige was what advertisers where getting from ads, they would pay to have the ads carried on th…

No, when you artificially click on a link, the original website pays the hosting website a bit and Google a bit.

So now when you run this program, the two entities you're most against (Google for not having safe-ads) and the content website (for not working for free) are actually getting payed!

If you want to hurt Google, just block ads.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#225

Post by jodrellblank »

sanswork wrote: post #86
TeMPOraL wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your time is so important why are you wasting it visiting pages with ads? 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.

So you just follow random links people send you? That seems like a horrible waste of your most precious commodity. YouTube offers a way to pay for an ad free experience. Are you a paying member?

"So you profess to care about your lung health and gave up smoking, but you still live in a polluted city? Since people are perfect and can fix every problem in one go, you must be a lying hypocrite and not really care about your lung health at all. Also my judgement of what is or isn't a waste of your attention is valid, I have a right to judge that for you".

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#226

Post by pdkl95 »

dispose13432 wrote: post #200
pdkl95 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was just responding to OP's claim that since the protocol doesn't specify I know. The examples were still factually incorrect straw-men. > it must be legal and ethical to block them That's the point; it is legal and ethical to use data that was voluntarily given. If you want control over how things are used , stop sending to everybody freely and require a contract. > harass those who spend money on them. Clicking…

>Clicking a link isn't harassment. You are making people lose money (not the malware adnetworks, not the trackers, but the guy buying advertisement) to prove a point to the ad-network (which is actually making money off this), I consider it close to harassment.

> lose money

Yes, that is one of the intended goals.

> not the trackers, but the guy buying advertisement

Targeting the source of funding is often an effective strategy.

> {,malware} ad-network

> trackers

> guy buying advertisement

All of these are responsible, so they are all intended targets.

> I consider it close to harassment

If following a website's href suggestion to load a URL is "harassment", then advertising is also harassment.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#227

Post by jodrellblank »

sanswork wrote: post #93
dumb-saint wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, they are not paying me for anything. Again, I did not enter into any agreement. I just clicked a link. They are expending their resources in an attempt to capture and profit from my attention. Those are very different things. Many times they also payed to make it hard for me to get to the content that I actually wanted. This is commonly known as SEO.

>I just clicked a link. Because you want to consume what they've produced. That is how they are paying you. You keep saying "I did not enter into any agreement" like it changes anything. It's juvenile.

Because you want to consume what they've produced.

So I'm agreeing to the contract before even seeing the content? I guess you're fine with me having 30 days to return the content under the Consumer Rights Act (UK) if it's not as described and they'll refund me the advertising money they made from me, right?

Particularly, if you say it's a trade of content for attention, then:

For goods and services bought online, your rights are the same as if you'd bought them from a shop.

You can make a claim for a refund, repair or replacement when the digital content you've bought doesn't meet these three standards: [..]

Fit for purpose: You should be able to use it for what the seller says it will do (its purpose), whether that's their statement when you buy it, or an answer to your question. For instance, an audio track should play, and a game shouldn't infect your computer with a virus.

As described: It should match its description when you bought it. For example, a film should be in the format you chose when you bought it.

So an advert from CNN shouldn't infect my computer with malware, and a link which claims I "won't believe" something [2] should leave me in disbelief.

[1] http://www.rica.org.uk/content/consumer-rights

[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/02/world/gallery/astonishing-...

Yeah?

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#228

Post by sanswork »

jodrellblank wrote: post #227
sanswork wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I just clicked a link. Because you want to consume what they've produced. That is how they are paying you. You keep saying "I did not enter into any agreement" like it changes anything. It's juvenile.

Because you want to consume what they've produced. So I'm agreeing to the contract before even seeing the content? I guess you're fine with me having 30 days to return the content under the Consumer Rights Act (UK) if it's not as described and they'll refund me the advertising money they made from me, right? Particularly, if you say it's a trade of content for attention, then: For goods and services bought online, yo…

What is it with all the pretend lawyers in this thread bringing up their misunderstanding of contract laws? Do you not realise how silly you all sound? Why do you think this comment is relevant to the thread at all? I didn't say you were legally bound to watch the ads at any point. I said you were paid for your attention. So in that case the transaction would actually be the other way around. Should the site be able to ask for a refund on their content since you didn't provide what they expected(ad views)?

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#229

Post by sanswork »

jodrellblank wrote: post #225
sanswork wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you just follow random links people send you? That seems like a horrible waste of your most precious commodity. YouTube offers a way to pay for an ad free experience. Are you a paying member?

"So you profess to care about your lung health and gave up smoking, but you still live in a polluted city? Since people are perfect and can fix every problem in one go, you must be a lying hypocrite and not really care about your lung health at all. Also my judgement of what is or isn't a waste of your attention is valid, I have a right to judge that for you".

Actually it would be more accurate to say "You profess to care about your lung health and gave up smoking but you go and hang out in every airport smoking room you can find?"

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#230

Post by Thimothy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #91
harigov wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming they don't know how to separate fake clicks, which can be done within a reasonable level of accuracy. It ends up being a war between digital ad agencies and the users. I can see who has the most motivation here and therefore higher chances of winning.

Tangential, but makes me think: could all those happy campers who like to DDoS GitHub and Freenode in their spare time target an ad bidding node instead? I'd love to see that happen. Do it for teh good old-school lulz.

Hum... I just thought that we rarely see here a tech showdown from ad companies, or employees (It might be because they'd be bullied to hell), for what we know they could have the most impressive anti-DDoS tech in the world.
Post reply on HN