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

Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 282 posts

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#181

Post by penagwin »

tyingq wrote: post #171
runn1ng wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, you are right. Those scummy links at Washington Post are all Outbrain. I was mistaken then (because they use BOTH Google and Outbrain)

Google often has scummy ads as well. Haven't checked recently, but the ads on http://getpaint.net are often designed to look like download buttons to download the popular paint application. Scummy AdSense ads are harder to pin down, of course, because of the live bidding and personalization.

Just check (3/22/19) and yup sure enough https://i.imgur.com/6SMBjDa.png . I find this is pretty common with many software websites that have ads, I'm really surprised paint.net doesn't switch to carbon or something.

EDIT: There's another one at the bottom of the page too. And they're randomized, some make it clear you aren't downloading Paint.net (such as the "Free Mac PDF Reader") but others aren't at all.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#182

Post by jefftk »

Reason077 wrote: post #66

Isn’t the real issue here a technical one with MoPub’s ad platform? How is it possible that a banner ad can open hidden off-screen views, and play video ads using a different (fraudulent) publisher ID? Can’t banners be sandboxed in order to prevent such activity, or at least detect it?

In general, ads get to run arbitrary javascript. This is terrible, because once you open the door to a programming language people can pull in anything. Automated and manual review can help, but it's hard to stop technically.

I'm currently working on making ads declarative [1] so they don't get to do this anymore.

[1] Specifically, AMP Inabox, which is AMP ads on non-AMP pages: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/ads/amphtml_ads

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#183

Post by GenericsMotors »

krn wrote: post #179

I don't mind Google or Facebook showing ads in their own products, because that's the only business model that works at their scale and for what their offer. Imagine the world, in which the access to the most advanced search engine or social network was only available to the people who can afford to pay for it. But I don't support using ad networks in the products that are not big enough to sell them themselves. Firs…

Been using Blokada since December and it's now a must-have; battery life has improved somewhat as well.

I don't even make heavy use of my phone for social media apps, yet have close to 300K ad-related requests blocked since I installed it.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#184

Post by ams6110 »

hannob wrote: post #65

It is interesting how this article starts. A guy has an app which drains users batteries. But it's not his fault of course, because it's the ad company. Except the ad company says it's not their fault, because the ad came from some other company. This fingerpointing points to one of the core problems of the ad industry: They created a system where nobody knows who's responsible for anything, so malware and fraud has…

> If you put ads in your app YOU are responsible.

Take that line of thinking one more step. If a user installs a "free" app that is ad-supported, the USER is responsible.

I tell my kids this when they bitch about needing a new phone because theirs is too slow and the battery drains too fast. I say look at all the crap you installed on it. Clean it up don't be so dumb.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#185

Post by Spivak »

Kalium wrote: post #172
phkahler wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But this mode of thinking makes no sense. If you put ads in your app YOU are responsible. If you use an ad service from a shady company that outsources to other shady companies then you're still responsible. Then it comes back to the Play Store. They like having all those free apps. It makes users feel like their Andriod phone has whatever they need. Google needs to make apps searchable based on privacy settings.…

Have you ever tried to convince someone to pay for something they believe they can get for free? The number of people who will pay monthly for user-respecting basic fundamentals like email is shockingly small. How much do you pay for your email?

Why would anyone pay for email when arguably the best in breed email service is free?

Why pay more for a worse product?

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#186

Post by geocar »

realusername wrote: post #88
geocar wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The internet existed before advertising Advertising has been around for centuries, perhaps even millennia. I mean, I think you mean "before online advertising", but that's not true either! Online advertising predates the web and even the Internet by decades; We had ads in the BBS days, and people didn't hate it. So what's going on? China does a lot of "social" advertising and doesn't have the problems with ad fraud…

> Advertising has been around for centuries, perhaps even millennia. Not really, unless you stretch the definition so much that it does not make sense anymore. The problem here is the advertising industry, not the small sign on a local business, when you stretch definitions, of course the reasoning does not work anymore.

The advertising industry was not merely or limited to "a small sign on a local business" before the Internet. Not in the last few decades, or even in the last few centuries. Moving the goalposts doesn't help anyone.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#187

Post by bluGill »

Spivak wrote: post #185
Kalium wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever tried to convince someone to pay for something they believe they can get for free? The number of people who will pay monthly for user-respecting basic fundamentals like email is shockingly small. How much do you pay for your email?

Why would anyone pay for email when arguably the best in breed email service is free? Why pay more for a worse product?

because fastmail is better than the free one. Just as good in the common use cases, they don't make me the product, and when in the rare case where I have a tech issue their support is responsive. There are a couple other paid email providers that I'm told provide services that are good.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#188

Post by shawnz »

hutzlibu wrote: post #178
shawnz wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like, capitalism is just a symptom of the root "problem" that humans are fundamentally self-interested

They are, but they are also also very social beings who sacrifice themself for others. Also, culture matters.

And capitalism enables occasional charity, if you want. So I'd say it's a pretty good parallel for our nature. Certainly though it's not the "root of the problem" when it comes to self-serving behaviour.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#189

Post by 14 »

ams6110 wrote: post #184
hannob wrote: post #65

It is interesting how this article starts. A guy has an app which drains users batteries. But it's not his fault of course, because it's the ad company. Except the ad company says it's not their fault, because the ad came from some other company. This fingerpointing points to one of the core problems of the ad industry: They created a system where nobody knows who's responsible for anything, so malware and fraud has…

> If you put ads in your app YOU are responsible. Take that line of thinking one more step. If a user installs a "free" app that is ad-supported, the USER is responsible. I tell my kids this when they bitch about needing a new phone because theirs is too slow and the battery drains too fast. I say look at all the crap you installed on it. Clean it up don't be so dumb.

Lol, Did we have the same dad you sound like me talking to my kids. It is because we love them we don’t sugar coat it. But the issue I have is why are these ad companies even allowed to siphon information from a tablet my “child” is using. I know one needs to watch the internet that small children use. But if I have a tablet solely used for my kid to watch shows and perhaps play some educational games or coloring, what business does any company have sucking up data from that tablet. Surely just by the list of apps installed, all children’s games, indicates immediately that a kid owned the tablet but I suppose that Is just another data point they have and like.
Post reply on HN