AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store • Hacker News Board

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#291

Post by smarx007 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 8:34 PM UTC

I always thought Stallman's ideas were _too_ crazy. Until I struggled with Chrome for 10 minutes trying (and failing) to install this extension in a way that wouldn't bother me. And then I realised that Chrome is dictating what can I do on _my_ computer and what I can't.

This year I will try to fix the rough edges in any FF plugins I use instead of switching back to Chrome.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computin...

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#292

Post by em3rgent0rdr » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

they posted link on homepage on how to install on Chrome bypassing webstore about 7 hours ago: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#293

Post by Jordrok » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 8:41 PM UTC

Well, I just spent the the past hour or so installing Firefox, setting it up with my preferences/imported bookmarks/extensions, and uninstalling Chrome.

In the grand scheme of things, I know it probably won't make a difference, but I still recommend anyone else who is angry about this to do the same. It at least gives you some satisfaction in taking back a little bit of personal control from Google.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#294

Post by djsumdog » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

andrewclunn wrote: post #21

Hello Firefox and Opera. I'm suddenly in the market for a new browser.

I never switched from Firefox. It had more of the tools I needed and at the time, Chrome's plugins architecture didn't allow sidebars at all.

I also hate how Google took pieces of WebKit and Gecko and smooshed them together into a closed browser (which they only opened up later). Granted WebKit was gobbled up from KHTML, but at least Apple expanded on it and contributed back, at least initially.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#295

Post by ben0x539 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 8:56 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…

Is this analysis independent on whether I'm the party who gets paid for the ad clicks? It makes sense to me that if I make someone sign a thing saying I get money per click, and then go ahead and simulate clicks, I'm defrauding them, but if I'm just some random guy, why's it on me to play nice with their method of detecting clicks?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#296

Post by Certary » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

jonas21 wrote: post #271

arcticfox wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is the game you linked to "blatantly illegal"? Edit: I'm genuinely curious -- did they copy the actual assets from the original game, or did they just copy the style and gameplay (which would generally be legal).

Screenshots, graphical assets and soundtracks / - effects are one to one copies.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#297

Post by logfromblammo » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

acobster wrote: post #137

nimbix wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A friend of mine studied abroad in Cuba. There were wild dogs everywhere. One of his roommates was shocked at their treatment. She would feed them and try to pet them, until one day she was bitten. So maybe it's OK to poke them preemptively, to keep them at a distance.

I believe there's a saying in the Caribbean: "Feel sorry fi maga dog, him turn roun' bite you."

They fall into the gap where the most humane thing to do would be to kill them, but they aren't quite dangerous enough for anyone to do that without feeling bad about it.

In the context of ad networks, they do need to be burned to the foundations and rebuilt better, but no one can stomach hurting anyone that currently needs them.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#298

Post by hsod » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

heroprotagonist wrote: post #281

hsod wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but according to this definition the fraud perpetrator need not gain, only cause injury to the fraud victim: "A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury." http://leg…

If we take that definition, what is misleading? Users are presented with something asking them to click and then they just automate the clicking. They aren't attempting deceit through their actions. Now, if the advertiser knows that people are clicking things through a script, and has some clause with their agreement with the company that says 'We won't charge you when this happens' but charges them anyway, that woul…

> They aren't attempting deceit through their actions.

You don't think so? Isn't the whole point of this extension to try and trick advertisers into paying for non-existent user engagement?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#299

Post by pdeuchler » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 9:48 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #48

It's pretty simple: this has to be wreaking havoc with Adsense - depleting ad budgets, artificially inflating CTRs, and giving website owners revenue they didn't earn. This extension also exposes website owners to unfair Adsense bans for generating high numbers of invalid clicks, which can cost them two months of revenue that is almost always withheld when Google bans a site. So by using this you could be costing som…

Neither you nor Google has any right, morally or legally, to tell me what to do with the content that Google willingly served to my personal property (my computer). Once those electrons cross that boundry from to they lose any and all control (although of course in reality they try their damnedest to retain it).

If Google wants to wholesale block all IPs that cause them a problem with click fraud that's their prerogative, but manipulating the electrons that very safely reside within my own private property and then turning around and continuing to serve me ads is something straight out of a Dickens novel and I shudder to think of what happens after the second chapter.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#300

Post by keldaris » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

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…

The extension is trivial to customize if you'd like to employ it in a more discriminate fashion. Many people already whitelist sites they care about in their normal adblock extensions, this one is no different.

But more importantly: > If you think tracking is going to be less pervasive by knocking down the little guys, you are sorely mistaken.

I believe the only way tracking is ever going to be less pervasive is when tracking simply doesn't work any more. Nothing short of widespread technical countermeasures will ever convince these people to back off, so I will gladly do anything I can to make their data as worthless as possible.