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

Advertisers Could Soon Demand 'Verified Clicks'

amediaoperator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Advertisers Could Soon Demand 'Verified Clicks'

#61

Post by soraminazuki »

WarmWash wrote: post #23
CodesInChaos wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW Google had another go at forcing Treacherous Computing on people. This time it's a reCAPTCHA successor, which requires the user to scan a QR code using a Google/Apple owned phone.

People need to just take responsibility and pay for shit. Like if you don't want to be kicked around, you need to be the one kicking. People interpret business as hostility because they cannot conceive of the idea that they themselves should pay for a service.

"It's people's fault that these tech billionaires are just scraping by!"

I beg to differ.

Re: Advertisers Could Soon Demand 'Verified Clicks'

#62

Post by wolvoleo »

ranger_danger wrote: post #60
wolvoleo wrote: post #29

Tbh I'm all in favour of ad fraud because it undermines the whole industry which I'd love to see disappear. I love running ad nauseam which instead of hiding ads clicks them all in an invisible browser, making advertisers pay for ads I didn't even see. And devaluing the entire concept. I wish ublock origin did this too, it's so common that it would totally screw up entire ecosystems. The number of people running ad n…

> the whole industry which I'd love to see disappear. For what alternative? Paying money to each website to access it?

I'd be happy with a lot of the current websites to disappear. There's way too much crap around anyway. And the ones that are worth it, yeah I'd pay for them. If they are ethical and worth it (I won't pay for anything from Google of course).

Besides, I don't really care what the replacement business model is. I just don't want this one.

Re: Advertisers Could Soon Demand 'Verified Clicks'

#63

Post by mbirth »

ranger_danger wrote: post #60
wolvoleo wrote: post #29

Tbh I'm all in favour of ad fraud because it undermines the whole industry which I'd love to see disappear. I love running ad nauseam which instead of hiding ads clicks them all in an invisible browser, making advertisers pay for ads I didn't even see. And devaluing the entire concept. I wish ublock origin did this too, it's so common that it would totally screw up entire ecosystems. The number of people running ad n…

> the whole industry which I'd love to see disappear. For what alternative? Paying money to each website to access it?

You know, there was a time when people actually paid to have their content hosted online. You read that right. Instead of trying to make money with a website, people PAID money to have a website.

Re: Advertisers Could Soon Demand 'Verified Clicks'

#64

Post by majorchord »

mbirth wrote: post #63
ranger_danger wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the whole industry which I'd love to see disappear. For what alternative? Paying money to each website to access it?

You know, there was a time when people actually paid to have their content hosted online. You read that right. Instead of trying to make money with a website, people PAID money to have a website.

You mean the time when websites did not have to deal with the bandwidth and infrastructure to handle millions of users and bots?

Re: Advertisers Could Soon Demand 'Verified Clicks'

#65

Post by pooploop64 »

jrm4 wrote: post #8

Big picture, it kind of blew my mind a few years ago when I realized this: If one concern is the surveillance panopticon thing, it's mitigated by the fact that online advertising itself is a business "fraught" with the fact that there is just as much of an incentive for the seller of ads to be loose with the truth and to use those sorts of tactics as it is for anyone else.

That's probably why Google tolerates all the blatant fraud against them by the avalanche of spam sites ruining the service. They're frauding google but google is frauding advertisers and they wouldn't be able to commit fraud to such a high degree if they couldn't tell advertisers that their ads got 10 gorillion fake impressions.

Re: Advertisers Could Soon Demand 'Verified Clicks'

#66

Post by pooploop64 »

toss1 wrote: post #11

Surprising it is taking advertisers this long to wake up, considering the decades I've been reading articles on HN about the massive fraud rates from entire fraud ecosystems. The saying in marketing used to be: "Half of all marketing dollars are wasted, but we never know which half". In the internet, it seems to be more like "90% are wasted" and literally never even get a human impression, nevermind a human click-thr…

A lot of people willingly get into scams because they think they're entering a position to be "in on it." Lots of ponzi scheme victims are like this. They know it's a ponzi schene and they know how ponzis work, but they think they'll be one of the people who cashes out before it ends. The breaking point is when the wrong person tries to cash out and they realize it already ended a while ago.

Re: Advertisers Could Soon Demand 'Verified Clicks'

#67

Post by yencabulator »

abc123abc123 wrote: post #46
wolvoleo wrote: post #29

Tbh I'm all in favour of ad fraud because it undermines the whole industry which I'd love to see disappear. I love running ad nauseam which instead of hiding ads clicks them all in an invisible browser, making advertisers pay for ads I didn't even see. And devaluing the entire concept. I wish ublock origin did this too, it's so common that it would totally screw up entire ecosystems. The number of people running ad n…

I often wondered if this strategy could work with email/phone scammers as well? Have an LLM write positive email responses, stringing them along as long as possible. Imagine the Nigerian prince of scams... instead of getting 0.1% response rates that he can work on, he gets 99% responses of encouraging replies stringing him along. He would drown in false positives. On the other hand, the Nigerian prince of scams would…

Have you talked to Lenny?

https://lennytroll.com/

https://github.com/sladesys/LennyTroll

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz2LQCm4ymY

Post reply on HN