171–180 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?
Fraud is a poor word choice, because it is a legal term. There must be a better word out there.
Sending automated clicks to ads arguably meets all the elements of common-law fraud:
(1) A false representation of fact (that the user clicked on the ad);
(2) Knowledge of the falsity (by the user installing and using the extension);
(3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!);
(4) Reasonable reliance by the innocent party (by believing the "click" was real and intended);
(5) Actual loss suffered (by paying the owner/operator of the page containing the ad)
In my view, therefore, "fraud" is an applicable term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But the advertising company is supposed to well-qualify their targets, right? It's on them for serving and charging for advertisements to people who don't want them or will 'click them' regardless of content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I am curious. I have a question for all of the people who are in favor of AdNauseum. How would you react if a website provider was able to detect that you were using AdNauseum, and they blocked your access to their website? Edit: Expand the question to include other adblockers, not just AdNauseum.
In principle there's no problem with sites that refuse users that don't view ads, I don't visit them, but I take no issue with them.
However, if I request a remote resource from your site and you transfer it to me, you have no say in what my client chooses to do with it.
Do you think it is unethical, immoral, or should be illegal to pay someone to clip the ads out of a free magazine before I read it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can the Adsense distinguish whether it is AdNauseum clicking or the human clicking?
The extension clicks every ad on a page. This is almost certainly extremely atypical and could be detected.
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.
They deserve shit for lying.