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

91–100 of 220 posts

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

#91

Post by jakobdabo »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #87
ThePhysicist wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you are not running an ad blocker they already know you are visiting those sites from the trackers accompanying the ads, now they will also see a click from you which will make their database about your interests become less accurate.

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

#92

Post by tyingq »

narrator wrote: post #22

I always thought it was funny that Google's billion dollar revenue model essentially relies on a trusted client.

I suspect part of the uptick in fraud was Google's release of headless chrome. It uses less memory than other approaches, so any click farm converting over would have more capacity.

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

#93

Post by srean »

amelius wrote: post #81
shubhamjain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

I think those descriptions are a little too subtle and too nuanced. Broader generalizations that make more sweeping claims would work better to make the point.

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

#94

Post by paulgb »

cyphar wrote: post #65
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.

4chan has been shilling it quite heavily as well, and (of course) they've been championing articles like TFA as proof that their technique is working. I personally think that there is a fair point to make that Google has already been sabotaging people who were trying to make a living off advertising (see the YouTube "adpocalypse"), so I can see where the anger might be coming from.

I used to work in ad fraud detection (eg. publishers buying fake clicks) about five years ago and fake clicks were a bigger problem than people talk about. I would be surprised if 4chan is more than a drop in the bucket.

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

#95

Post by Gustomaximus »

cyphar wrote: post #69

Despite what your opinion might be on the ethics and justifications of the people involved, I find it quite concerning that they're being painted as "ad fraudsters". This sounds like the same Orwellian re-definition of words as "piracy". There is no implicit or explicit, social or legal contract that says if I click an ad that I must then purchase the product. Nor is there any agreement that if I click an ad that I h…

It is a soft form of fraud when they know bots and dodgy apps are being allowed to take clicks as legitimate advertising. There are tools that pick this up as well as analysis to encourage refunds from AdWords but for some reason Google have lagged on this technology, dispute a massive information advantage. Maybe it is innocent reasons. But I don't believe that. So I feel they are doing fraud in a light form by not improving tools as well as they can to remove bad clicks and take the payment.

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

#96

Post by amelius »

srean wrote: post #79
amelius wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ads were the only type of information, we were already doomed. For example, why do you think reviews are so important? Also, you are reading articles through HN, not by watching ads for them first. Then there is the age-old word-of-mouth. Or seeing products in action with friends. I could go on and on.

I see that you have a very practical and scalable solution out there. We will gush about a movie/product/service launch on television and call it news. One might even consider incentivising people to write positive reviews, we will just not call them ads. Why havent we seen any of these yet ? I have my review-blocker, post-blocker, word-of-mouth blocker startups still in waiting.

Incentivized reviews == ads == bad

Are you saying that ads are okay simply because we have no means to eradicate them?

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

#98

Post by belorn »

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…

Several reasons why adnetworks is hated to the point where people want to take action:

Adnetworks don't take responsibility for what they publish. Malware, scams, illegal ads (such as targeting children), and resource depleting software are all ire-causing problems where it's the victim that have to shoulder it.

Then we have the ethical question about tracking and creating registers over people who search for medical conditions. To target the sick and vulnerable is very ire-inducing. Doctor-patient confidentiality exist for good reasons and many ad networks have no problems in ignoring that.

If adnetworks played by the common rules (ie laws) that we all have to abide to, then I would generally agree that citizen action like this is bad. But thats not the current situation, so its either activism like this or put our hope that global treaties is going to be signed that limit what companies can do and what legal responsibility they have.

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

#99

Post by rcdmd »

cyphar wrote: post #69

Despite what your opinion might be on the ethics and justifications of the people involved, I find it quite concerning that they're being painted as "ad fraudsters". This sounds like the same Orwellian re-definition of words as "piracy". There is no implicit or explicit, social or legal contract that says if I click an ad that I must then purchase the product. Nor is there any agreement that if I click an ad that I h…

I think you're missing the point of "click fraud[1]". Unscrupulous actors are using botnets to "click" ad network links on their sites, which they then get money for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud

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

#100

Post by 7952 »

cyphar wrote: post #69

Despite what your opinion might be on the ethics and justifications of the people involved, I find it quite concerning that they're being painted as "ad fraudsters". This sounds like the same Orwellian re-definition of words as "piracy". There is no implicit or explicit, social or legal contract that says if I click an ad that I must then purchase the product. Nor is there any agreement that if I click an ad that I h…

Surely the attacker has agreed to the terms before displaying the ads and are in breach of that agreement? They are getting money through deception. Sounds like fraud to me.
Post reply on HN