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

AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

adnauseam.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 344 posts

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#91

Post by ryandrake »

pimlottc wrote: post #26
everyone wrote: post #10

Who uses Chrome anyway? .. Question: I'm not a web dev, Ive never heard of this. I currently use adblock plus and privacy badger. Does this do what they do? Would it be a good idea to install them all? If not which solution do you think is the most hardcore in terms of privacy. thanks!

> Who uses Chrome anyway? Over 50% of all desktop users [0], or, in other words, hundreds of millions of people. 0: https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...

GP should have asked "Who uses Chrome AND is privacy conscious enough to be interested in this?" Those demographics shouldn't really overlap much. It's like making a product for people who like hanging around in a casino but don't like gambling.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#92

Post by jstanley »

Spoom wrote: post #22
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #19

I find it interesting that this particular Adblocker is being removed, while countless others remain. I suspect that other adblockers like, say, ABP or UBO, are less damaging to the agent fingerprint than an adblocker that clicks everything.

AdNauseam silently clicks the ads as you mention, so they're actively messing with Google's ad statistics. If I was Google, I would consider it an attack too.

It is an attack on Google, but if they want people to perceive Chrome as benevolent, they must leave this extension alone.

By blocking the extension (and, no less, actively removing it from places it was already installed!) they just reveal that the Chrome store exists primarily to serve their own interests and is not for the benefit of the user.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#93

Post by jstanley »

ryandrake wrote: post #91
pimlottc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who uses Chrome anyway? Over 50% of all desktop users [0], or, in other words, hundreds of millions of people. 0: https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...

GP should have asked "Who uses Chrome AND is privacy conscious enough to be interested in this?" Those demographics shouldn't really overlap much. It's like making a product for people who like hanging around in a casino but don't like gambling.

I use Chromium because Firefox's performance is too terrible, but I consider myself privacy-conscious.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#94

Post by kylebenzle »

siegecraft wrote: post #58
downandout wrote: post #48

It's pretty simple: this has to be wreaking havoc with Adsense - depleting ad budgets, artificially inflating CTRs, and giving website owners revenue they didn't earn. This extension also exposes website owners to unfair Adsense bans for generating high numbers of invalid clicks, which can cost them two months of revenue that is almost always withheld when Google bans a site. So by using this you could be costing som…

Were there really enough people using this to cause such an impact?

I've been using it for a few months and more recently took to installing it on public computers and telling anyone who would listen to use it. Just put it on my Mom's computer a day ago. I alone had it on a dozen machines or so.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#95

Post by colept »

keldaris wrote: post #89

Thanks, Google. I'd never heard of this extension before now and had often wondered in the past why no one had thought of this strategy to screw with online tracking and data collection. The free PR is great, and now AdNauseam has another new user. :)

Because Google is not "the man" in this scenario that you're sticking it to - it's the website owner whose content you're consuming. Google gets paid either way, and AdNauseam is pennies on their dollar. Webmaster however, depend on advertising revenue to keep publishing.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#96

Post by chrisrhoden »

morley wrote: post #82
ben0x539 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should still be giving Google shit for decisions like that, even if they're not surprised.

Why does Google deserve the shit for stopping people from taking money from them? I wouldn't think to give a department store shit for pressing charges against someone who smashed up a bunch of merchandise, whether or not the act was politically motivated.

As far as I know, there are laws against smashing up a bunch of merchandise you haven't paid for, and the department store would probably press charges rather than taking advantage of the fact that they're part of a conglomerate providing medical insurance to refuse coverage to the protestors on shaky grounds.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#97

Post by nilved »

morley wrote: post #82
ben0x539 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should still be giving Google shit for decisions like that, even if they're not surprised.

Why does Google deserve the shit for stopping people from taking money from them? I wouldn't think to give a department store shit for pressing charges against someone who smashed up a bunch of merchandise, whether or not the act was politically motivated.

Are you trying to relate clicking ads to smashing up merchandise?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#98

Post by jstanley »

jmcdiesel wrote: post #31

What point did we begin to feel entitled to do whatever we want in someone else's software? If someone wants to kick you out of there house for no reason, you leave their house. You're not paying to be there, you're not paying to publish there... you have no intrinsic "right" to be there... you were there as a privilege - when it disappears, for whatever reason, there is no reason other than a false sense of entitlem…

If you act like you're running your house for the benefit of the public, don't be surprised if people get upset when you start throwing out people you don't like.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#99

Post by nimbix »

acobster wrote: post #72
nimbix wrote: post #20

"Company which makes its money from advertising bans automated click fraud extension from being used in its browser."

Not that I'm really surprised by Google's action, but "fraud" is a pretty strong word for what's happening, and pretty disingenuous IMO. No one's pretending to be anyone they're not.

Click fraud is a standard industry term for robot initiated clicks, which this is a case of. What this extension generates are certainly not legitimate clicks form interested users, or even unintentional clicks that happen due to various reasons (some HN readers like to blame them on dark patterns, but they're really just of a consequence of the fact that ad tech is just not that great in general).

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#100

Post by blauditore »

_ofdw wrote: post #53
blauditore wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it a bit harsh to be so hostile towards online ads. After all, it's has been a significant source of income for innovative companies or services that couldn't exist otherwise, because users are notoriously reluctant to pay for virtual goods. Yes, tracking and overly intrusive fullpage popups are real issues, but not all ads are inherently evil.

I can't name a single online service that is supported by ads and that I couldn't live without. >not all ads are inherently evil. All advertising is manipulation. Advertisers are bad and should feel bad.

I prefer classic advertisement labelled as such over subliminal manipulation like product placements or fake reviews / fake "fans" on social platforms.

And frankly, I even discovered products through ads I might have never found otherwise, even though that's not how it should be in a perfect world.

Post reply on HN