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

101–110 of 344 posts

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#101

Post by CaptSpify »

nimbix wrote: post #66
GlickWick wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course this could happen. This plugin automates clicking ads on a page, which does directly violate exactly what that section of the TOU is saying.

The users of this extension have a clear case of the "I'm allowed to poke the dog with a stick, but the dog is not allowed to bite me" mentality, so it's a complete surprise to them when it happens.

more like "I'm allowed to defend myself from the attacking dog by using the stick." I'm not surprised they want to take my stick away, but that doesn't make Google's actions any less shady.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#102

Post by vmateixeira »

waxim wrote: post #61
Spoom wrote: post #29

At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised? AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money . Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense. There is even a method to install it directly[1] whi…

Google HAS to block this and prevent it from ever being run if it can, its click fraud plain and simple and they've been stung too many times with huge bills for fraud it could have prevented and didn't.

Disagree. If they want to stop click fraud, they can try to do it from other than the browser end.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#103

Post by acdha »

abhv wrote: post #76

By clicking on the ads automatically, it seems like Adnauseum actually supports the underlying website (which earns $$) while also performing the function of muBlock. It is currently the best of both worlds! I would like an AdNauseum type interface for video.

> By clicking on the ads automatically, it seems like Adnauseum actually supports the underlying website (which earns $$) while also performing the function of muBlock

That theory works until someone notices that the extra clicks aren't leading to anything else, complains about click fraud, and then the website is penalized with fines, account suspension, etc. That small site likely won't even have the resources to defense themselves effectively.

There's also an interesting security question: do you really want to automatically click on the next zero-day deployed through an ad network?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#104

Post by tyingq »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #88
tyingq wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just trying to guess their underlying reason. I can see, however, a view that "not loading" an ad doesn't qualify as "interfering" with it...but clicking on it for the purpose of disruption is considered "interfering". Also, I updated the link to point at chrome extension policy vs app store policy. The wording is similar.

You're right that the wording is similar for the chrome extension policy. The section about interfering with ads is still under "Ads in Chrome Apps & Extensions" and the wording for the description is "Ads associated with your app or extension may not interfere with any ads on a third-party website or application.". It's still clearly referring only to ads that are part of an extension, and AdNauseam obviously doesn'…

Ahh, yeah. So they only specifically care about interfering from an extension if the extension's ads are interfering.

I guess they just invented this "single purpose" policy to be able to ban things without coming right out and saying "you're hurting our revenue stream" :)

There must be someone from legal that's advising them not to ever say anything specific about extensions that mess with ads.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#105

Post by kylebenzle »

nilved wrote: post #97
morley wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, he is. People get very sensitive (and illogical) when their income is put at stake.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#106

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#107

Post by ominous »

waxim wrote: post #61
Spoom wrote: post #29

At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised? AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money . Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense. There is even a method to install it directly[1] whi…

Google HAS to block this and prevent it from ever being run if it can, its click fraud plain and simple and they've been stung too many times with huge bills for fraud it could have prevented and didn't.

Everything that is GETtable risks being GET. Why would Google serve an ad to someone who might click it without the intention of following through with the ad? Because Google chooses who to show the ad to. So it is really Google's fault. Google created click fraud.

See how ridiculous this is?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#108

Post by Fnoord »

snowwolf wrote: post #60
losteric wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you're quoting that? I literally just installed the plugin. Google has blocked installing AdNauseam from the Chrome store and installing the .crx file manually. Manually installing the developer package is completely unhampered.

Restart your browser and you will see the extension is no longer installed. This is deliberate on the part of Chrome (Firefox does this too) - It is to prevent malicious extensions from using the developer mode as a backdoor to install themselves. On each restart, you will need to re-add the extension from source.

I've been needing to do this with the LastPass Chrome extension as well. It is rather annoying, but if you just keep the browser running it is bearable. I'll slowly switch back to Firefox though. They are adding sandboxing and swapping Gecko to a Rust-based engine. We'll see about the performance. Bottomline is, I'm done with being overly reliable on Google.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#109

Post by djsumdog »

dpark wrote: post #74
_ofdw wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 can't name a single online service that is supported by ads and that I couldn't live without. How about search and email? All the major players are ad supported.

I run my own email service. I also find search currently very disappointing. Google, Yahoo, duckduckgo? Remember when they were several major indexes? Lycos, Altavista, etc.

Today Google actively removes things from their index at the requests of various governments and entertainment industries. We have very little choice in search, leaving much of the web unlocatable.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#110

Post by hshussb »

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.

They do overlap. I'm privacy conscious but I feel myself forced to use Chrome because the alternative, Firefox, has subpar security features (no sandbox, no process separation) and terrible performance.
Post reply on HN