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

301–310 of 344 posts

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#301

Post by jwtadvice »

I don't think I've ever personally clicked on a Google Ad - they appear to me to only a combination of spam ('unwanted ads') and tracking/surveillance implements.

I don't own an Android Phone (any cellular phone, since the Snowden Documents disclosed mass domestic surveillance programmes). So I can't use AdNauseum. I do, however, run similar software on my laptop and I would have used this software or something similar to it were I to own such a device.

One of the reasons - above and beyond GPS tracking databases and my information from cellular phones going into HUMINT and propaganda databases - is that the phones and tablets I've used haven't been sufficiently owned by me.

Google/Alphabet's willingness to uninstall software on user's devices is an example of this: their terms of agreement lay out conditions equivalent to their partial ownership of your device, and your limited ability to own and control the device for yourself.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#302

Post by notahacker »

ben0x539 wrote: post #289
notahacker wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you can reasonably frame clicking on too many ads as an act of sabotage. It's interfering with the metrics that some people who you don't necessarily have a business relationship use to make business decisions (like paying out money), but it's not obvious to me how you're obligated to be particularly cooperative in their gathering of the metrics. The system continues to work as intended, you're just n…

Fundamentally I feel like sabotage involves something like me going to someone's place and destroying their equipment like in your original analogy, also I'm probably being really sneaky about it. Naturally there's a legal and moral right to me not coming over and fucking up their shit, and probably to not be sneaky in some ways. But here, they are wasting their money because they decided that they'd pay some amount…

You could use the same "they decided to publish the URL and make it serve data... no obligation on me to behave in a way that is actually a good deal for them" line of rationalisation to justify a DDoS attempt or computer worm.

That's why the relevant criterion here is is this software written for the express purpose of fucking up their shit?, to which the answer is obviously, yes and they've said as much, and acknowledged that if you just don't want to be tracked you're better off with a proper adblocker anyway.

If you want to leave your TV running without paying attention to the commercials, regular adblockers exist and are amongst the Google Web Store's most-downloaded apps.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#303

Post by downandout »

pdeuchler wrote: post #299
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 preroga…

Of course you can do anything you want. I'm just telling you the potential repercussions, which include destroying someone else's livelihood. If you are OK with that, fire away. But if everyone did the horrible/harsh things that they are legally entitled to do in this world, we would be in a very bad place.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#304

Post by [deleted] »

Jordrok wrote: post #293

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.

[deleted]

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#305

Post by smarx007 »

Jordrok wrote: post #293

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.

I think FF addons also need some more love this year. Was thinking of a low-hanging-fruit issue aggregator for FF plugins like this one https://github.com/spring-guides/issue-aggregator. Would you be interested in using such an aggregated list of bugs?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#306

Post by type0 »

notahacker wrote: post #134
nilved wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to relate clicking ads to smashing up merchandise?

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...

> Both actions are done with the stated intent of costing the target money.

No it doesn't, it is to obfuscate the results about your interest and make the information they sell about you - useless. They are not giving me any money so I have no obligation to provide truthful ad clicks either.

> (in a manner intended to bring the system down) but so do many DDoS attacks...

You can't be serious, it's not comparable to DDoS attacks. It is just obfuscation, pure and simple. It is not in any way unethical either, digital surveillance that ad companies practice is on the other hand very much unethical. When I visit one website, why should dozens of third parties be able to sella and that information? When did they ask my consent? The only way to make that info useless is to have automated add-on like this, if the majority would use it, we wouldn't have as big problems of ad networks spreading malware and proving government agencies with surveillance information.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#307

Post by type0 »

ben0x539 wrote: post #289
notahacker wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you can reasonably frame clicking on too many ads as an act of sabotage. It's interfering with the metrics that some people who you don't necessarily have a business relationship use to make business decisions (like paying out money), but it's not obvious to me how you're obligated to be particularly cooperative in their gathering of the metrics. The system continues to work as intended, you're just n…

Fundamentally I feel like sabotage involves something like me going to someone's place and destroying their equipment like in your original analogy, also I'm probably being really sneaky about it. Naturally there's a legal and moral right to me not coming over and fucking up their shit, and probably to not be sneaky in some ways. But here, they are wasting their money because they decided that they'd pay some amount…

> Next we're going to go around and fine people for leaving their TVs running without paying attention to the commercials...

Well that actually might happen someday. Not sure where, but some podcast on youtube was discussing almost just that. Electronics companies might strike a deal, where you have a smart tv with a camera and face recognition, where you get a good deal of channels cheaper if you watch the commercials. Also when you rent a movie via their streaming partner, you pay depending on how many eyes are watching.

Off course we all know how easy it is to game face recognition now, but in the future it might not be as Ai algos keep improving. Sadly I hate to see this day when we get to the level where most people will obediently watch the commercials because they can't pay trice the price. This kind of future seems both comical and disheartening, like someone would combine 1984 and They Live.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#308

Post by Pica_soO »

ben0x539 wrote: post #42
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…

People should still be giving Google shit for decisions like that, even if they're not surprised.

One of the many things about humanity- we adapt to near all circumstances no matter how bad. And we adapt fast, in 20 years from cold-war showroom equality and egality to oligarchy without borders.

Oligarchs abusing there power? Not so bad, as long as it hits somebody else backyard. Even better, if it just never makes its way into the news.

All even, the democratic powers playing the great game again, condemning every country who doesn't want to be a feudal servant and go for a "Leave me alone" nuke-stance? And after all - hey we are still here, aren't we- so its not so bad.

People vanishing every night? Guess, one can get used to that, nobody of the vanished has ever complained. And hey, dropping housing prices, finally a solution to that.

To actually get a accurate, neutral moral "measurement" you would have to take a group and enclose them in the isolate standards of the past- and then have them write about how they perceive today.

The interesting measurement question- if there is one, is what is left that those in power could do- they wouldn't get away with? That couldn't be swept under the rug, that once really tied the room together?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#309

Post by type0 »

saghm wrote: post #285
_euvw wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In te Netherlands, we have stickers that we cab place on our real-life mailboxes: "No ads. No unspecified recipient." The advertisers (mailmen) are not allowed to ignore this sticker. Am I stealing money from advertisers? There is no such rule for online adverts. So what is a parent to do? By blocking them and obfuscating through clicking I am protecting my own sanity, and that of my children. This is my "No/No" stic…

> In te Netherlands, we have stickers that we cab place on our real-life mailboxes: "No ads. No unspecified recipient." The advertisers (mailmen) are not allowed to ignore this sticker. Wow, that's actually kind of amazing. I wish we had that in the US...

I have such sticker but not anyone is actually following that. It helps to shout at ad mailmen sometimes when I notice them. I'm much more irritated over political junk mail.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#310

Post by type0 »

WhiteOwlLion wrote: post #252
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The distinction is automation versus manual process. If you manually reply with bogus information, then your illustration works. When you automate the process, there's no intervention on your part. Ad blocking is fine with me, but when you intentionally click on ads in an automated way, this becomes click fraud. There's a certain level of click fraud that is tolerated by Google, but AdNaseum takes it too far IMO.

You're joking right? You obviously never automated bogus reply on the phone answering machine for one or the other reason. If you don't pick a phone at home and answering machine takes it, are you comiting a fraud because it is automated and telling everyone that you're not home.
Post reply on HN