AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store • Hacker News Board

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#121

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:23 PM UTC

colept wrote: post #95

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.

Google is not the one we're trying to "stick it to". They are far from the worst player in this space. Moreover, AdNauseam is not meant as a surgical strike against some player in particular, but as a carpet bombing of the whole ad scene. Which, IMO, totally deserves it, and the collateral damage dealt to some publishers is totally worth it.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#122

Post by pixdamix » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:23 PM UTC

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?

Anyone who's (or should be) a little bit concerned about security ?

Firefox has been absent from 2016's Pwn2Own contest because of insuffisant "security improvements in the last year".

This may change with the Electrolysis project[1]

[1]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#123

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:25 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#124

Post by mattlevan » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

fryguy wrote: post #118

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.

If you look at it as the extension performs fraud, then what Google did is completely defensible. And I feel that it does. You may not feel that way exactly, but it's certainly justifiable that the extensions actions defraud the ad network.

Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#125

Post by throw_away » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

chad-autry wrote: post #120

claudius wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top. This is the exact sort of thing anti-monopoly laws are intended to work against: that a major market force in one market uses that power to intrude or support itself in another market. Since Google Chrome undoubtedly has a sufficiently large market share that this may be a concern and the removal of this extension certainly…

But this isn't a case of two different markets...Google makes no money off of Chrome. They make money off of advertising. The bottom line of Chrome is that it is just there to view advertising. The better they can make it, the more it will be used, and the more advertising will be viewed (hopefully Google's)

Microsoft wasn't making any money off of IE in 2001's US vs. Microsoft.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#126

Post by hsod » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

kylebenzle wrote: post #105

nilved wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No need for personal attacks. While the analogy (like all analogies) is an imperfect one, there are clearly some parallels between the two situations and I think the comparison is interesting.

It's purpose is to get you to look at things from the other side: what would you do if one of your customers was intentionally harming your business?

To pre-empt a personal attack against me: I do not make a living from advertising.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#127

Post by colept » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #121

colept wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google is not the one we're trying to "stick it to". They are far from the worst player in this space. Moreover, AdNauseam is not meant as a surgical strike against some player in particular, but as a carpet bombing of the whole ad scene. Which, IMO, totally deserves it, and the collateral damage dealt to some publishers is totally worth it.

> collateral damage dealt to some publishers is totally worth it.

Said a clown before the rodeo.

The collateral damage is putting small independent publishers out of business and reinforcing monopolies in publishing. If you think tracking is going to be less pervasive by knocking down the little guys, you are sorely mistaken.

> ‘We know your dark secrets. We know everything.’ - Steve Huffman from Reddit

When all that's left is Reddit, Google, and Facebook - the collateral damage is the same thing you're trying to protect.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#128

Post by Artemis2 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

Everytime a Google product makes it to the front page a Google engineer chimes in. No one today?

https://hn.algolia.com/?query="i%20work%20at%20google"&dateR...

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#129

Post by downandout » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:30 PM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #111

downandout wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a favorite site of even one AdNauseum user. Adsense is very sensitive to stuff like this, especially in higher CPC niches.

Why not? On the short term, you get more income from ad revenue. Who knows what the effect on the long term is going to be.

You would be banned - very fast. You would never actually receive the money since Adsense pays out on a two month delay. They are very good at identifying this type of activity and the webmaster is the one that pays the price.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#130

Post by ashark » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 4:30 PM UTC

malka wrote: post #85

Artemis2 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried earlier today in Chrome Canary in developer mode and after a short while the extension disabled itself. When I try to enable it back again the console on the Extensions page says "Unchecked runtime.lastError while running management.setEnabled: Extension kkendhmcacabobepidajpejenjinojhp cannot be modified by user."

100% assholish on google side to disable side loading for a very specific extension. The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension.

> The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension.

Seriously. I'd figured they'd filter these "clicks" out easily server-side and didn't bother to install this thing, but this ban has hinted otherwise. I'll be installing it everywhere I can now.