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

241–250 of 344 posts

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#241

Post by pklausler »

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…

When I manually click an ad for a political candidate or party that I despise, am I committing fraud?

(Not saying that I do that, of course. Entirely hypothetical.)

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#242

Post by losteric »

snowwolf wrote: post #60
losteric wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you're quoting that? I literally just installed the plugin. Google has blocked installing AdNauseam from the Chrome store and installing the .crx file manually. Manually installing the developer package is completely unhampered.

Restart your browser and you will see the extension is no longer installed. This is deliberate on the part of Chrome (Firefox does this too) - It is to prevent malicious extensions from using the developer mode as a backdoor to install themselves. On each restart, you will need to re-add the extension from source.

Oh, I didn't know that. I restart Chrome less than once a month :)

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#243

Post by ben0x539 »

floweringlotus wrote: post #210
ben0x539 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Alright, how about an example with no orders? Let's say you think the police state is evil, and you wish to destroy it by wasting its resources. Is making automated empty 911 calls justified? 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…

I'm not sure I am a fan of the analogy, but either way, I think we've moved away from calling it fraud so I'll accept that.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#244

Post by pseudometa »

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 often click ads with no intention of buying... just to redistribute money around to Google and website owners.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#247

Post by dxhdr »

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.

Defraud: illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception.

That does not describe the situation in the least. AdNauseum is more akin mailing junk back to junk mailers using their paid postage. You show me an ad, which I did not ask to see? Fine, I'll click it, automatically. Enjoy.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#248

Post by ddevault »

Wikipedia summarizes fruad as "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right." The user does not unlawfully gain and the ad provider doesn't have a legal right that's being infringed on here.

Some legal resource I found online says that in the US fraud requires: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. [1] Note that "material fact" here is a legally significant phrase, and implies a written agreement or some other mutually agreed to terms that establish the expectation - which never happened between you and the ad provider.

No matter how you slice it the user of ad nauseum is not committing fraud. This misinformation needs to stop.

[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#249

Post by cdubzzz »

recursive wrote: post #232
hedora wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised people still use Chrome and not Chromium. Perhaps a few devs in your situation could improve the Chromium installation flow for Windows, etc. Google doesn't have much incentive to make it easy, but third parties (like Debian) do, and do a lot of the heavy lifting on an ongoing basis.

I can't even figure out how to install a stable version of Chromium. I only spent two minutes trying, but installing Chrome consists of one web search and one button click, so the difference is pretty obvious to me.

I thought for sure this was an exaggeration but you are absolutely correct. I couldn't find anything in two minutes either.

I have Chromium installed on a my Ubuntu desktop but I think I had to add a PPA to get it.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#250

Post by dsp1234 »

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…

You're missing a few elements. One of which is, "the injured party’s right to rely thereon"[0] (unless that's what you mean by #4 above).

"A party does not have a right to rely on a representation if she is aware the representation is false, not enforceable, or not made to her."

It's clearly arguable that the ad network knows that a browser is able to click on an ad in an automated fashion. Thus, they do not have a right to rely on that representation, as it is not enforceable.

[0] - http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/common-law-...

Post reply on HN