201–210 of 344 posts
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.
A user that clicks on all ads they are shown will most likely be blacklisted as a bot (rightly so, as they are using an auto-clicking bot).
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…
> 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…
That's actually not true. There's some case law about that sort of thing (the Microsoft antitrust case being the most famous), but the basis for anti trust law has always been about price efficiency, not protection of competition for competition's sake (c.f. the Microsoft breakup was overturned), nor consumer benefit.
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.
I would if I could!
But we are not in a yard. We are in a public area, where I was walking along minding my own business and the dog came up and started barking at me. I never wanted to interact with the dog in the first place. He intruded on my life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making their tracking data useless is kind of the point of the extension. Obviously it's well within Google's interests to stop people using it. I guess if you're privacy minded it's probably best not to use a browser made by a giant ad company.
I'm not sure how I'd feel if something like this became widespread and I was paying Google for clicks. Well. I guess that's the point. But then surely it's fairly understandable for Google to try and stop them - at least on their own turf? Google doesn't fund Chrome out of a sense of altruism - they want to have control over those aspects of the web-browsing ecosystem that potentially threaten their bottom line. And…
That’s exactly what they can’t do, and where antitrust laws come in.
Google has to run Chrome out of altruism, or not at all.
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.
If it was more prevalent, eg. if Google somehow managed to arrange for all sites serving Google ads to stop working if ads are blocked, that'd change the dynamic. Ultimately it's not gonna lead to me clicking on any more ads and then buying people's stuff, so I don't think it's in Google's interest, but it'd be interesting to see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Just issuing a GET doesn't cause a somebody to be charged. It's a process involving delivering specific tracking cookie along with the ad that should you end up clicking through to the intended destination gets tracked through either more cookies or tags in the URL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
... Or, more likely, they will switch to an ad network with more obnoxious, or dangerous ads. Google, Microsoft, and their ilk are a fair bit better as ad networks then some of the less scrupulous players. Yes, the large networks occasionally serve dangerous ads. But by far and large, they have better standards then most of the fly-by-night ad networks.
Personally, I first heard about this extension a month ago and didn't pay much attention to it then. Now I want to install it.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think it is fraud to order a pizza to be delivered to someone else's house, because you are a vegetarian and wish to destroy the business model of meat-based pizza? How about doing this to every pizza store you encounter that serves meat? You're not profiting..just wasting a business's resources by misrepresenting your identity and intentions.
Someone clicking an ad is not a) making an order or b) pretending to be someone else, which seem kinda instrumental for the fraud in your analogy. The ad didn't get served with a ToS document explaining that by clicking it, you enter into a contract or whatever. It's your decision to pay money based on ad clicks, and it doesn't somehow oblige people who have nothing to do with you to only click ads in the manner you…
Just because you intend to use the 911 hotline as an emergency resource surely shouldn't impede my right as a phone owner from calling it in the manner you intended. It's my god-given right as a phonebook owner to call whatever numbers I see fit in whatever quantities I want to.
It doesn't even have to be 911. You can DDOS the phone lines of any business to make them less effective. Is this ethically defensible?