551–560 of 710 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fraud would involve financially benefiting from it - if you don't benefit I don't think it would count as fraud in most countries.
You may want to read the CFAA and report back. Spoiler alert, it doesn’t involve your intentions or money. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
The companies spying on me should be the first in line to be tried under CFAA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, fraud isn’t the correct term here. The op grabbed the first word that probably presented itself, and others nearly ad nauseam (lowercase) have discussed its merits as the term. What’s needed is a better term. I propose either AdTurfing (hat tip AstroTurfing) or AdLighting (hat tip GasLighting). My personal preference is the second.
Isn't it just vandalism?
Ad biz is a business model, not property, and a predatory one as that. You are not obligated to enable someone else's business for free.
They are claiming their clicks and impressions mean something - its their problem to ensure they are accurate.
Imagine someone is doing a survey of sex habbits, and selling the results. Is it a fraud to lie? Ofcourse not, why should you be responsible for their profits.
The fact that people think they are legally obligated to enable this is really fucked up.
There is a German movie about the system that is used to gather TV ratings. It's a special box that some users get which reports what they are watching. Small sample size goes into a big statistic (not sure how accurate the portrayal of the system in the movie is). These boxes are given to the people who pay the German public TV fee, which excludes i.e. students (they don't have to pay) and some other groups. This gr…
> Maybe we should engage in large scale AdWords fraud. You may like the "Google will eat itself" idea. https://www.gwei.org/index.php
Those 819 shares are worth $2,371,005 now
As a developer of an ad blocker[1] our stats would seem to back up what Plausible has found: - Despite having equivalent desktop (macOS) and mobile (iOS) apps, most of our users (> 75%) use the app primarily on desktop - Most users say the key reason for use is for privacy protection; even with Safari providing some inbuilt privacy tracking protection - Our app is focused on providing a simple 'set and forget' ad blo…
It appears that Magiclasso is not open source. That being the case, how can anyone trust your claim that "Magic Lasso Adblock doesn't see or have access to any of your web pages or browsing history?"
My home network runs Pi-Hole, and every browser has uBlock Origin. The Internet has been a bearable place. And then I happened to show my 2 year old a cartoon from Youtube on a non-adblocked device.
My. Freaking. God.
It's full of ads.
The cartoon is 10 minutes. Every minute, an 15-second, at the very least, ad rolls in. Like fucking gnats by the river in the summer: you get one, two, and then you are swarmed in them. There weren't the yellow markers anywhere on the progress slider, too.
Not all of those ads were good for kids, too. One was, I kid you not, an ad for Jira. An ad for the fucking Jira, in the middle of a cartoon. Won't anybody think of the children!?
My daughter was very much not impressed. So was I.
I promptly got uBlock Origin running, and youtube-dl'd the whole channel those cartoons were in, for good measure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hacking democracy (ratings voting system, whatever) to indirectly effect a supposedly benevolent unilateral outcome? Sounds familiar.
It's not exactly hacking democracy. Democracy implies every gets a vote. This is P hacking small sample sizes.
There is a German movie about the system that is used to gather TV ratings. It's a special box that some users get which reports what they are watching. Small sample size goes into a big statistic (not sure how accurate the portrayal of the system in the movie is). These boxes are given to the people who pay the German public TV fee, which excludes i.e. students (they don't have to pay) and some other groups. This gr…
"large scale AdWords fraud." Be carefull - fraud is a crime. But I am under no obligation to provide AdWords any data, let alone true and reliable data. Considering the tracking and spying, and my legitimate interest in privacy, there is no room for fraud argument here. PS: this would be probably a Hoax
I expected these numbers to be higher. However, an even more interesting metric is the 88% block in Firefox. Firefox may not have a great market share, but based on these numbers it's market share may very well be eight times higher than your analytics report. This can change the argument of "it's only 3% of our users so we don't need to test on FF" to "it's a quarter of our user base, we should at least test it", de…
The reason Firefox is higher is probably because it's the easiest one to block ads on mobile. Most people I know who use Firefox on mobile do so specifically to have ublock origin. I personally use chrome on desktop but Firefox on mobile.