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

101–110 of 220 posts

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

#101

Post by throwaway7312 »

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…

If enough users adopt this, the effect will be advertisers flee whatever websites those users frequent.

The end result being those websites (due to declines in revenue) cut their staffs, reducing the quantity and quality of their content. And then AdNauseum users complain on certain subreddits about the declining quality of the target sites.

AdNauseum seems to be a case of "you destroy what you love."

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

#102

Post by paulgb »

runeks wrote: post #41

I find this really interesting. We’re all familiar with exploiting vulnerable software, but this appears to be exploiting a vulnerable business model. Does this attack work with Facebook as well? I think the difference in client authentication might prevent this attack on Facebook (just ban accounts that click too many ads). But, on the other hand, Google might be able to use IP-addresses to accomplish the same. Taki…

> a virus that infects regular consumer devices, and delivers fake clicks from seemingly honest clients.

Click fraud has been one of the ways to profit from a botnet of virus-infected computers for years.

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

#103

Post by 55555 »

sharkweek wrote: post #16

Pardon my rudimentary understanding here, but I sort of assumed in such a wide scale auction, pricing would reflect acceptance of a certain level of fraud, and that the price would balance out at a point where these fake clicks were part of the equation.

This is basically true, but it's not a perfectly efficient market and it doesn't react immediately. But basically yea, every network has ad fraud and you just build that into your max CPC because at the end of the day everything runs on a CPA/cost-per-conversion basis.

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

#104

Post by keldaris »

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.

Have you seen modern ads? They're a direct security threat, a threat against privacy and, many would argue, a considerable social ill. AdNauseam represents one of the few available means of direct action against the ad industry. Personally, I think it's a great idea.

In fact, I would argue that until the ad networks take responsibility over the security implications of their actions, using AdNauseam is the ethical thing to do.

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

#105

Post by runeks »

paulgb wrote: post #102
runeks wrote: post #41

I find this really interesting. We’re all familiar with exploiting vulnerable software, but this appears to be exploiting a vulnerable business model. Does this attack work with Facebook as well? I think the difference in client authentication might prevent this attack on Facebook (just ban accounts that click too many ads). But, on the other hand, Google might be able to use IP-addresses to accomplish the same. Taki…

> a virus that infects regular consumer devices, and delivers fake clicks from seemingly honest clients. Click fraud has been one of the ways to profit from a botnet of virus-infected computers for years.

That should be relatively easy to detect, since the actors must have an account with Google, through which they receive payments for ad clicks. Google would just have to find a copy of the malware, and see which accounts the clicks are targeted at.

What I’m talking about would be impossible to detect, since it just amounts to regular users clicking regular ads. But it would also be more challenging to profit from, so it would amount to sabotage more than a profit scheme, unless somehow coupled with short-selling Google stock (a bit more far-fetched, admittedly).

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

#106

Post by throwaway0071 »

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…

That's the usual mental gymnastics I often see on HN.

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

#107

Post by tyfon »

srean wrote: post #93
amelius wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think each of those are broad and sweeping and show just how bad the advertisement has become.

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

#108

Post by baybal2 »

sharkweek wrote: post #16

Pardon my rudimentary understanding here, but I sort of assumed in such a wide scale auction, pricing would reflect acceptance of a certain level of fraud, and that the price would balance out at a point where these fake clicks were part of the equation.

>pricing would reflect acceptance of a certain level of fraud, and that the price would balance out at a point where these fake clicks were part of the equation.

This is how it is, bur nobody says it aloud

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

#109

Post by baybal2 »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #43

Clickfraud has been a problem for as long as online ads exist. Its widespreadness has caused ad revenues to decline to the point of non-profitability years ago, and many web media outfits to close shop. On what basis should customers be refunded without actual, objectively measured clickstream data? This piece feels like a media campaign to make AdSense appear as premium service over alternatives to me. The point is…

Small time bloggers switched to affiliate schemes ages ago

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

#110

Post by tomjen3 »

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 is not Schadenfreude, it is war and arguably a defensive one. And if you believe ads are wrong then it really doesn't matter whether it is a big or a small company that does it.
Post reply on HN