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

141–150 of 344 posts

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#141

Post by TeMPOraL »

colept wrote: post #127
TeMPOraL wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Monopolies in publishing seem to depend much more on ad revenue than small, independent publishers - who tend to utilize solutions like Parteon, fundraisers, donate buttons, referrals, sponsorship or just plain old self-hosting like in the good old days. There are plenty of alternative strategies available to players big and small, and the only thing I can see dying off is all the crap that the Internet drowned in since people started monetizing eyeballs.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#142

Post by hedora »

blauditore wrote: post #39
iUsedToCode wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's supposed to mess up the stats and inject uncertainty into ad analysis. They are trying to bring down the price of ads on the internet, thus making them unprofitable. I hope they succeed.

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.

This extension only clicks tracking ads. The authors seem to primarily be upset about mass surveillance.

I'd hope that it enables do not track, and also checks for tracking cookies before clicking, but haven't looked carefully.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#143

Post by leereeves »

chrisrhoden wrote: post #96
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.

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.

Google's lobbyists may well be pushing for laws against "click fraud".

(I'm just guessing that's what they might call it.)

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#144

Post by notahacker »

djsumdog wrote: post #109
dpark wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't remember Lycos/Altavista etc rendering anywhere near as much of the web (as a proportion of what existed back then) locatable, having a radical stance on copyright or having less obtrusive ads...

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#145

Post by Analemma_ »

mattlevan wrote: post #124
fryguy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes? I'm honestly not sure how you could think otherwise. This is a clickbot just like any other.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#146

Post by kuschku »

downandout wrote: post #129
Fnoord wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, if that’s true, within of months, half of websites will have to search for a new ad network, and we might get a chance at less intrusive ads.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#147

Post by strictnein »

CaptSpify wrote: post #101
nimbix wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The dog, in this case, is protecting their property. They're not in your yard, you're in their yard. So get out of their yard if you don't like the dog.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#148

Post by lightedman »

NoGravitas wrote: post #34
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…

According to TFA, they are also blocking manual installs and updates.

And they're locking users out of their data.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#149

Post by em3rgent0rdr »

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.

Fortunately Chromium is open source. I would hope that linux distros downstream would patch this anti-feature.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#150

Post by chrisrhoden »

leereeves wrote: post #143
chrisrhoden wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google's lobbyists may well be pushing for laws against "click fraud". (I'm just guessing that's what they might call it.)

They might! The case they would have to make seems pretty shaky to me, but legislators have done some things that seem pretty ridiculous to me in the past, and I am sure there is plenty more coming.

That doesn't make acting in such blatantly bad faith until you are able to take legal action forgivable.

Post reply on HN