Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 220 posts

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#81

Post by amelius »

shubhamjain wrote: post #54
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…

Arguments against ads:

- They provide unsollicited information, which distracts and irritates users.

- They use screen real estate.

- They use bandwidth.

- They use energy.

- They make websites slower.

- They introduce security problems.

- They track users, collect their data.

- They incentivize companies to disrespect our privacy.

- They put users in an information bubble.

- Market failure: not the "best" product wins, but the one with the biggest advertisement budget behind it.

- They make people feel inconfident (see photoshopped fashion ads)

- They play with our minds.

- They are often targeted at children.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#82

Post by ThePhysicist »

madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

This might be quite dangerous if used without a solution to anonymize your IP and block all third party cookies, as it will expose your browsing habits and could even let advertisers de-anonymize you. Knowing that you regularly visit e.g. 5-10 specific domains can be enough to uniquely identify you in a dataset containing millions of people depending on the relative popularity rank of these domains. I would therefore be very cautious with this as it might do serious harm to your privacy. Not interacting with ads and not sending any data about you to the ad provider is still the best option for that. Also, most fake clicks can be easily detected (because you e.g. do not interact with the ad content after clicking on the ad), so it might not even do much harm to the ad providers (if that's the reason why you use the system, which I do not endorse personally).

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#83

Post by pdkl95 »

shubhamjain wrote: post #54
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…

This isn't shadenfreude; it's a type of direct action against advertising and indirectly the type of hyper-capitalism that allowed advertising to become malignant.

When profit is the only metric that counts, the only way to send a message is to disrupt the flow of revenue.

> seems nothing but despicable

I'd suggest viewing it from the other side, but I suspect Upton Sinclair's caution may apply: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#84

Post by denzil_correa »

birken wrote: post #21
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

You think Google can't detect this? Enough advertisers have conversion tracking that Google can detect if a person is clicking a zillion ads and never actually converting, in addition to the other multitude of ways they detect fraud. I'm sure in the battle between fake traffic producers and Google there are probably tricky ways you can fool Google, but a person clicking every ad is not one of them. Also... this doesn…

> You think Google can't detect this?

If they randomize it, no.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#85

Post by gaius »

KGIII wrote: post #77
legopelle wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine a single state-owned database where merchants enter detailed product information. The consumers may then query the database at their leisure.

Which government would you trust to do that?

The French, bring back Le Minitel!

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#86

Post by raverbashing »

shubhamjain wrote: post #54
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…

> It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam

MacKeeper ads

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#87

Post by ThePhysicist »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #82
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

This might be quite dangerous if used without a solution to anonymize your IP and block all third party cookies, as it will expose your browsing habits and could even let advertisers de-anonymize you. Knowing that you regularly visit e.g. 5-10 specific domains can be enough to uniquely identify you in a dataset containing millions of people depending on the relative popularity rank of these domains. I would therefore…

From their website:

> As the collected data gathered shows an omnivorous click-stream, user tracking, targeting and surveillance become futile.

This is (IMHO) a flawed and dangerous view, as by clicking on the ad you provide valuable information to the provider (I.e. that you visited the website on which the ad was embedded) and this information can be used to build a pretty detailed view of your browsing habits. As the largest ad networks have very high coverage on many domains (Google e.g is present on more than 80 % of the top 100k most popular domains) you will give them a wealth of data about you, which IMHO is a privacy nightmare.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#88

Post by KGIII »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #80
KGIII wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which government would you trust to do that?

I'd trust the UK civil service to do that. The hardest but would probably be verification -- does that lasagne really only have beef in, was the cocoa for that chocolate actually grown in a Fairtrade farm, in Ivory Coast, etc..

I'm American. I don't even trust my government to do math properly.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#89

Post by KGIII »

gaius wrote: post #85
KGIII wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which government would you trust to do that?

The French, bring back Le Minitel!

And if there is a change in the political spectrum, will you still trust them? My government lost my security clearance application to who knows who. In return, I got some credit monitoring and a form letter.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#90

Post by omginternets »

shubhamjain wrote: post #54
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…

>But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget.

Literally nothing else seems to be working, so poisoning the advertising well strikes me like a fair tactic.

Post reply on HN