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

261–270 of 344 posts

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#261

Post by notahacker »

doodpants wrote: post #233
notahacker wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both actions are done with the stated intent of costing the target money. Sure, it only involves accessing URLs the public is actively encouraged to visit (in a manner intended to bring the system down) but so do many DDoS attacks...

Can you cite any evidence that the "stated" intent of AdNauseam is to cost the target money? According to their video, the intent is to protect the user's privacy by preventing advertisers from building an accurate personal profile of the user. You may argue that this has the effect of costing the advertisers money, but just because that is a result, doesn't make it the primary goal. It's certainly not AdNauseam's fa…

From AdNauseum's FAQ

Indeed it is marginally safer for one to simply use a strong adblocker and protect themselves. And it is also safer to stay at home rather than to attend a protest. But safety is not the only concern. Using an adblocker does little to change the status quo. AdNauseam, and the obfuscation strategy in general, instead presents a possible avenue for collective resistance; a means of questioning and perhaps, eventually, changing the system. But this is not for everyone. If your goal is primarily self-protection, it may not be for you...

So they're aware of the fact this is worse at protecting privacy than a simple blocker, and equally unambiguous about their objectives being to change the status quo by damaging ad networks' business models. And yes, they've calculated the direct cost of some of those clicks too:

As the precise cost generated by clicks is not visible to the client, AdNauseam calculates an estimate using an average value of $1.58 for each clicked Ad.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#262

Post by lalalander »

nimbix wrote: post #99
acobster wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I'm really surprised by Google's action, but "fraud" is a pretty strong word for what's happening, and pretty disingenuous IMO. No one's pretending to be anyone they're not.

Click fraud is a standard industry term for robot initiated clicks, which this is a case of. What this extension generates are certainly not legitimate clicks form interested users, or even unintentional clicks that happen due to various reasons (some HN readers like to blame them on dark patterns, but they're really just of a consequence of the fact that ad tech is just not that great in general).

"Click Fraud" is an industry term precisely because that's what the ad networks want you to think. It's fraud when you unintentionally (automatically through a script or otherwise) click on their ads, but when they spy on you, it's not called "spying", it's called "personalised" advertisements. "Standard industry term" is just another way for the big players to justify what they are doing, in essence, a euphemism.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#263

Post by godshatter »

dpark wrote: post #74
_ofdw wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't name a single online service that is supported by ads and that I couldn't live without. >not all ads are inherently evil. All advertising is manipulation. Advertisers are bad and should feel bad.

> 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 am in the process of switching everything over to fastmail, which is a paid email service without ads, because I dislike the current state of the advertising industry so much. Plus, I'm now in a financial relationship where I am the customer, not the product.

I might likely do the same for a search page if such a thing existed and the price was right. Until then I use startpage or duckduckgo to (attempt to) retain some anonymity.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#264

Post by arcticfox »

menegattig wrote: post #7

Few month ago we developed and launched an AI-based AdBlocker (called AdFilter) and also had several problems with Google Chrome Web Store. Almost every week they had a "strange reason" to remove our extension from the Google Chrome Web Store. We had more than 380,000 DAU (Daily Active Users) from 36 countries with all good feedbacks on Google Chrome Web Store, but even so, Google always tried to find a way to get us…

Meanwhile, there are blatantly illegal things on the Android app store with no touch at all from Google. (For example this Age of Empires "clone" https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.squid.ageo...)

Priorities clearly higher in killing ad blockers.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#265

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

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…

You're being imprecise - it doesn't cost Google money, it is advertisers who are losing money in this case. Of course, in the long run, if clicking ads gets popular as a trend among adblocking tools, it can influence the whole industry, and Google will earn less money. This is not the same thing, though.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#266

Post by VikingCoder »

iUsedToCode wrote: post #11
xwowsersx wrote: post #4

Can someone explain what the point of silently clicking the ads is? Why not just block them? Does clicking the ads somehow aid in blocking or is it a way of fighting back against perceived abuses by advertisers?

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.

...because you want the sites that use ads to all go paywall?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#267

Post by VikingCoder »

jlarocco wrote: post #235
blauditore wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I strongly disagree, and feel the overall utility and usability of the internet has been negatively affected by advertisements. Companies that can't survive by selling a product or service directly probably should go out of business, IMO.

You get that companies that sell a product or service ALSO show advertisements too, don't you?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#268

Post by xaa »

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…

It seems this extension could be tweaked to only operate on sites with high Alexa rankings or similar to avoid this problem. That would probably be a good idea, because you make a good point.

Or, it could even have two "modes": a "carpet bombing" mode for high Alexa sites that clicks everything, and as you decrease in popularity, it increasingly begins to simulate real user behavior.

That would simultaneously disrupt the system for the big players and, hopefully, get extra revenue for the little guys.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#269

Post by VikingCoder »

_ofdw wrote: post #53
blauditore wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't name a single online service that is supported by ads and that I couldn't live without. >not all ads are inherently evil. All advertising is manipulation. Advertisers are bad and should feel bad.

So you're taking all of those services away from other people.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#270

Post by VikingCoder »

Aldo_MX wrote: post #45
tyingq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The advertisers don't mind paying for disruptive, intrusive, battery-draining, bandwidth-consuming, rich-media advertisements, so I don't mind draining their wallets.

You just said, "The sites I visit don't mind receiving money for disruptive, intrusive, battery-draining, bandwidth-consuming, rich-media advertisements, so I don't mind draining their wallets."

If there's someone who makes content you like to see, why don't you mind draining their wallet?

Post reply on HN