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

331–340 of 344 posts

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#331

Post by tornadoboy55 »

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…

A very large part of the globe does not follow common law.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#332

Post by aninhumer »

hsod wrote: post #298
heroprotagonist wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

But the user never makes any kind of claim or promise that their advert clicking represents real user engagement.

It's up to the advertiser to accurately classify user behaviour, and the user has no responsibility to make that easy for them.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#333

Post by prirun »

__jal wrote: post #219
morley wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does Google deserve the shit for stopping people from taking money from them? I wouldn't think to give a department store shit for pressing charges against someone who smashed up a bunch of merchandise, whether or not the act was politically motivated.

Google deserves shit for using market power to stop the purchasers of personal devices from running software of their choice. If the user does something with their device Google dislikes, Google can block the user from using Google services, or if they're doing something illegal, they can go that route. This habit of retroactively removing functionality from devices is not OK. If Google relies on a business model oth…

And users deserve shit for buying Chromecrap, then expecting Google to act in users' interests rather than its own.

Most large tech companies want to get a noose around users' necks. If you stick your head in the noose, guess what happens?

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#334

Post by VikingCoder »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #322
VikingCoder wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 si…

It's not the GET I have a problem with, it's the fact that you're following the onClick, as though the user did in fact click.

And you left a YUUUGE amount of ambiguity there, intentional or not, when you used the word "implies."

I don't know how the courts take things like "Click here if you agree to the terms" on an online form, but I don't think you've closed the door on my argument, yet.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#335

Post by downandout »

pdeuchler wrote: post #320
downandout wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If your income stream relies on millions of random internet strangers gracefully letting your code live rent free on their own personal devices then you have nobody to blame but yourself. That is assuming that sending GET requests to a public internet endpoint is a "horrible/harsh" thing to do...

Right, just like a DDoS attack is just "sending get requests to a public internet endpoint".

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#336

Post by zaphar »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #239
fryguy wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The intent is what's important to me. If it were an extension, like in the 90's when everyone was on dial-up, that pre-loaded links, and some of those links happened to be ads then that's one thing. The goal of that extension is to load pages faster since they've already been downloaded. That's not fraud. This extension clearly understands that links are ads and that clicking them will cost the advertiser money…

That's not how fraud works.

How is that not how fraud works. The extension practically bills itself as a form of protest intended to devalue an ad for an advertiser by acting in an intentionally deceptive manner.

It is generally understood and indeed reasonable to assume that in order for most users to click an ad they must first see it. This extension intentionally violates that in order to deceive that same advertiser.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#337

Post by cortesoft »

dragonwriter wrote: post #319
cortesoft wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as (1).... making a web request is NOT a user saying they clicked an ad. That is an inference that the website owner is making, not a statement the user is making. The user never agreed to that. This would be like if you are a dairy farmer and you notice people who buy cookies usually buy milk, so to make things simple you make an agreement to pay a store 25 cents for every cookie they sell (because you want t…

> making a web request is NOT a user saying they clicked an ad. Whatever the merits of that argument might be in the general case, using an extension which expressly advertises its function to include falsifying clicks to mislead ad networks makes it hard to make the argument in that context .

Right, but just because I know the inference that a 3rd party is making, am I under some responsibility to not change my behavior? I don't think I have some legal or moral responsibility to not troll someone watching me.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#338

Post by seanp2k2 »

icebraining wrote: post #192
ryanhuff wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about clicks from browsers that have this plugin installed are just not counted? That sounds simple enough.

How can they tell if the browser has this plugin installed?

Let's make AdN a thing like privoxy, where it runs on the network and does all of this outside of a browser, and for all clients on the network.

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#339

Post by squarefoot »

jstanley wrote: post #93
ryandrake wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP should have asked "Who uses Chrome AND is privacy conscious enough to be interested in this?" Those demographics shouldn't really overlap much. It's like making a product for people who like hanging around in a casino but don't like gambling.

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

Take a look at Palemoon. A Firefox fork with speed in mind. https://www.palemoon.org/

Re: AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

#340

Post by arcticfox »

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).

Sorry for the delayed response, but yes, they copied the original assets.
Post reply on HN