AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store • Hacker News Board

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#191

Post by ben0x539 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:09 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #17

tetrep wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is to mess with advertisers' metrics. If people using ad blockers are peaceful protesters, AdNauseam is trying to riot.

Assuming they aren't detected as fraudulent, it's messing with more than metrics. The advertisers, in many cases, are paying per click. Edit: Not making a judgement here, just clarifying that the extension is doing more than messing with metrics.

It's precisely only messing with metrics, it just so happens that one of the metrics happens to be the one you agreed to use as basis for your payments. ;)

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#192

Post by icebraining » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

ryanhuff wrote: post #112

downandout wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably can't, since it's an extension and thus uses the user's browser, IP, cookies etc (Adsense does use mouse tracking and other techniques that will likely flag these clicks as suspect, requiring additional analysis). Therein lies the problem. It appears to them as if someone is going and clicking on every ad, or is using an automated headless browser to click on ads. That can easily get you banned. Google…

How about clicks from browsers that have this plugin installed are just not counted? That sounds simple enough.

How can they tell if the browser has this plugin installed?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#193

Post by acobster » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #147

CaptSpify wrote: post #101

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.

Maybe the dog in this case is protect people's incomes, but they're not a regular guard dog in the sense of protecting from intrusion. More like they're out in public, begging for food. Oh and some of them might have rabies.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#194

Post by em3rgent0rdr » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #173

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fraud is a poor word choice, because it is a legal term. There must be a better word out there.

Attorney here! (But not your attorney and not giving legal advice -- seek qualified counsel in your state if you need assistance.) 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 rep…

Since the packets are being sent to your computer, I consider the situation analogous to a someone coming to your home and then you replying to them with bogus information. Maybe that still fits this definition of fraud, in which case I would say I don't believe such fraud should be legally suable. I think the users property rights of their computer trumps the advertiser's complaint about fraud.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#195

Post by mring33621 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:11 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #145

mattlevan wrote: post #124

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.

I'm pretty sure that, in the USA, choosing to click ads would be protected under the first amendment.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#196

Post by j_s » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:11 PM UTC

vlunkr wrote: post #115

I just confirmed you can install this manually in Chromium still. https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...

Yes. As stated elsewhere, this must be done each time the browser is restarted.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#197

Post by fixermark » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:11 PM UTC

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.

Is it just ad statistics, or is there actually risk to the client in having the extension silently forwarding client-side information to any page content that politely asks for it? Feels like that basically circumvents XSRF protection, right?

We may be overthinking this. Google may have blocked it as malware because it's malware, even if it's not intended to be.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#198

Post by gog » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #93

ryandrake wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where do you get the binaries? Or do you build it yourself?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#199

Post by Pica_soO » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:14 PM UTC

halflings wrote: post #90

Pica_soO wrote: post #46

If Google where clever they would welcome this as creative destruction and search for a way to diversify there revenue stream mono-culture. But they cant, because they are the gold standard, and everything new will look like dirt besides the dairy cow that keeps the comfy live afloat. Thus google has become Microsoft, and Microsoft has become Google, the cycle is complete.

So, you think Google simply does not want to "diversify there revenue stream", and haven't tried to do so? What about Android, DeepMind, self-driving cars, etc.?

All "hobbyist" projects, gunned down before they could be taken by the likes of elon-musk to the runway. For you shall not have other power-cores in a company, beside the one.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#200

Post by ben0x539 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 5:14 PM UTC

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.

If you're not browsing youtube with the extension enabled, I'd expect that Google refrains from using that completely unrelated customer relationship to fuck you over for using an extension they don't like. It's like if the city arranged to have your publicly-managed utilities cut off because you're fighting them in court over a traffic ticket, only I guess a bit less critical.