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

321–330 of 344 posts

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#321

Post by VikingCoder »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #278
VikingCoder wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am this browser, requesting this content on behalf of the user, who clicked on this ad." Walk me through this, okay?

I don't understand what you're asking for.

The user is using an extension that, on their behalf, is directing the browser to request content, acting as if the user had clicked on an ad.

(1) a false statement of a material fact

The extension is telling the site, "I am this browser (user agent), requesting this content (what's behind this ad url), who clicked on this ad (calling the onClick handler of the element that has the ad."

That's not true. The user did not click on the ad.

(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue

The user knows they did not click on the ad.

(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim

Everyone in this thread is saying it's to confuse the metrics, and some are saying it's to purposefully take money from the advertisers.

(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement

The vast majority of HTTP GETs to URLs that are only found as href on Ads are requested because the user clicked on the Ad in their browser. Can you name even ONE other time a browser follows the onClick event on an Ad?

(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

Money.

So, walk me through how this is not fraud?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#322

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

VikingCoder wrote: post #321
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're asking for.

The user is using an extension that, on their behalf, is directing the browser to request content, acting as if the user had clicked on an ad. (1) a false statement of a material fact The extension is telling the site, "I am this browser (user agent), requesting this content (what's behind this ad url), who clicked on this ad (calling the onClick handler of the element that has the ad." That's not true. The user did…

You should read the comment you replied to, dude.

>(1) a false statement of a material fact

>The extension is telling the site, "I am this browser (user agent), requesting this content (what's behind this ad url), who clicked on this ad (calling the onClick handler of the element that has the ad."

>That's not true. The user did not click on the ad.

I said in my comment:

>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.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#323

Post by smarx007 »

VikingCoder wrote: post #321
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're asking for.

The user is using an extension that, on their behalf, is directing the browser to request content, acting as if the user had clicked on an ad. (1) a false statement of a material fact The extension is telling the site, "I am this browser (user agent), requesting this content (what's behind this ad url), who clicked on this ad (calling the onClick handler of the element that has the ad." That's not true. The user did…

Not all users of this extension are in the US :) But a very thorough analysis, I must admit.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#324

Post by belovedeagle »

VikingCoder wrote: post #321
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're asking for.

The user is using an extension that, on their behalf, is directing the browser to request content, acting as if the user had clicked on an ad. (1) a false statement of a material fact The extension is telling the site, "I am this browser (user agent), requesting this content (what's behind this ad url), who clicked on this ad (calling the onClick handler of the element that has the ad." That's not true. The user did…

> (1) a false statement of a material fact

First, a GET request is in no way a statement that the user intended to view an ad: is accidentally clicking an ad fraud? Of course not.

Second, a GET request is not even an indication that the user clicked on some element. It's not even a statement that the user requested a particular resource. Indeed, when the ad itself is requested you could hardly call that user-requested; if your analysis were correct I see no reason we couldn't extend it to say that ads themselves constitute a fraudulent statement that "this content is something you requested".

Third, even if a GET request amounts to a statement of user action (if not intent), adnauseam's actions do not constitute a false statement of user action/intent. There are lots of ways to activate the default onclick handler; physically pressing a mouse button is only one of them. Trackpads and touchscreens are other ways; are they fraudulent? Keyboard shortcuts and other keyboard navigation are yet more, are they fraudulent? No, of course not, since they accurately represent user actions. Installing adnauseam is just another method of performing the same action, clicking on ads. It accurately implements the intent of the user, more so than clicking, which can be accidental.

IANAL, but based on your own criteria, without a false statement of material fact there is no fraud.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#325

Post by scott_karana »

halflings wrote: post #90
Pica_soO wrote: post #46

If Google where clever they would welcome this as creative destruction and search for a way to diversify there revenue stream mono-culture. But they cant, because they are the gold standard, and everything new will look like dirt besides the dairy cow that keeps the comfy live afloat. Thus google has become Microsoft, and Microsoft has become Google, the cycle is complete.

So, you think Google simply does not want to "diversify there revenue stream", and haven't tried to do so? What about Android, DeepMind, self-driving cars, etc.?

You have the correlation and causation backwards.

Google doesn't start side projects to make more money: they make more money (on ads) so they can have fun, unprofitable side projects.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#326

Post by [deleted] »

halflings wrote: post #90
Pica_soO wrote: post #46

If Google where clever they would welcome this as creative destruction and search for a way to diversify there revenue stream mono-culture. But they cant, because they are the gold standard, and everything new will look like dirt besides the dairy cow that keeps the comfy live afloat. Thus google has become Microsoft, and Microsoft has become Google, the cycle is complete.

So, you think Google simply does not want to "diversify there revenue stream", and haven't tried to do so? What about Android, DeepMind, self-driving cars, etc.?

[deleted]

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#327

Post by BrandoElFollito »

saghm wrote: post #315
type0 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry for my lack of knowledge about this, but are "ad mailmen" a specific thing in the Netherlands? In the U.S., junk ads just come in the regular mail.

If it is like in France (we have the same regulations) then you have two kind of junk mail :the one addressed to you (because they have your mail status, supposedly because you have it to them and agreed to get mail spam) and anonymous one (from supermarkets for instance, with their promotions or sales) which are delivered by someone payed by them. The stickers work for the latter (which is maybe 70% of the volume)

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#328

Post by jstanley »

gog wrote: post #198
jstanley wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Chromium because Firefox's performance is too terrible, but I consider myself privacy-conscious.

Where do you get the binaries? Or do you build it yourself?

I use Ubuntu. I get the binaries out of apt.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#329

Post by _ofdw »

floweringlotus wrote: post #140
_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.

If I have a friend who I know is interested in a particular author, and I notice that that author has released a new book, is it evil for me to tell my friend? I don't think it is. I'm connecting a producer and a consumer in both of their best interests. When the producer is the one who asks an entity like Facebook "who enjoys this author?" and advertises the new book to them, why is this evil? People have desires, a…

Ignoring your false equivalence:

If you already want something, then the ads are useless because the entire point of an ad is to manipulate me into buying something I didn't want to buy.

If I want to buy the book already because I am interested in the author's books then the books sell themselves without need for ads.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#330

Post by na85 »

VikingCoder wrote: post #269
_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.

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

So, I have to waste my mobile bandwidth on ads because you want free email?
Post reply on HN