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

Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

dhowe.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 253 posts

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#31

Post by pb2au »

mpeg wrote: post #10

I don't understand this, they say it prevents tracking but, actually, this helps ad companies track you since they will now know you will click their ads whenever you are visiting a certain site. With ad blockers that prevent the HTTP request, those third party sites aren't able to track you. The publisher can always track you but that won't be shared with their advertisers or networks. Disclaimer: I work in the adte…

In addition, the overzealous, erratic clicking originating from an obscure extension could make it pretty easy to detect these users.

The only result would be filtering out their traffic from counting towards any PPC ads and more accurate tracking of the individual users. There isn't an upside to running this extension.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#32

Post by sheetjs »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #21
androidb wrote: post #8

Bad idea, ads are also a way to support the site/service you are using. Automatic ad clicks can get that site banned (i.e. Adsense will surely do that) so that's a sure way to kill the site. Google for instance wouldn't have existed without ads. Lots of people on HN saved millennia with help from Stackoverflow (ad supported) and so on. I'm now "ad-aware" so I know how to differentiate content from ads, but I will cli…

I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. First of all, you're right that it would totally kill sites. Let's say it happens. What's next? I would be ecstatic if sites like BuzzFeed and Gawker died. That'd be great[1]. But it also kills good sites like Stackoverflow. That sucks. Right now people don't have to pay for content. Almost everything is ad based. Because of this people almost never pay for…

I'm not convinced that StackOverflow is a good example. The economics of this "HuffPo" model (no ad revenue actually flows to the content producers) seem unsustainable in the long run.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#33

Post by joopxiv »

forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

... since I've paid to access the Interwebs

You're paying for data transport, you're not paying for the content.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#34

Post by tomp »

mpeg wrote: post #10

I don't understand this, they say it prevents tracking but, actually, this helps ad companies track you since they will now know you will click their ads whenever you are visiting a certain site. With ad blockers that prevent the HTTP request, those third party sites aren't able to track you. The publisher can always track you but that won't be shared with their advertisers or networks. Disclaimer: I work in the adte…

Doesn't the ad network get that information already when you load the ad?

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#35

Post by jackmaney »

loumf wrote: post #22
chrisBob wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain now clicking an ad link prevents tracking?

It's explained on the site. If every ad is clicked by everyone, tracking data is useless.

No, it isn't. Ad networks would have a clearer picture of sites that people visit (albeit a muddier picture of ad preferences).

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#37

Post by easytiger »

chrisBob wrote: post #15
easytiger wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you've used google to advertise with before but they will work out that this user is clicking maliciously and discard them. The whole point is they won't get revenue from this unless you visit very few sites.

So does that make it better or worse than just blocking adds?

I think its an attempt at anarchism. This on any scale might render their data useless. Of course they might just ignore all data from this user meaning it changes nothing.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#38

Post by Alupis »

This is not a good idea... it will get sites you frequent possibly put into review by their ad networks. By clicking ads every time you visit their page, they will grow suspicious quickly... at least Google Adsense will... potentially freezing or seizing all funds in the adsense account (the opposite reaction to the spirit of this product)

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#39

Post by carrier_lost »

forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

"There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs"

When I go to McDonald's, I don't pay for my Big Mac. I already put gas in my car!

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#40

Post by mkr-hn »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #21
androidb wrote: post #8

Bad idea, ads are also a way to support the site/service you are using. Automatic ad clicks can get that site banned (i.e. Adsense will surely do that) so that's a sure way to kill the site. Google for instance wouldn't have existed without ads. Lots of people on HN saved millennia with help from Stackoverflow (ad supported) and so on. I'm now "ad-aware" so I know how to differentiate content from ads, but I will cli…

I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. First of all, you're right that it would totally kill sites. Let's say it happens. What's next? I would be ecstatic if sites like BuzzFeed and Gawker died. That'd be great[1]. But it also kills good sites like Stackoverflow. That sucks. Right now people don't have to pay for content. Almost everything is ad based. Because of this people almost never pay for…

I would support this if I believed sites would start paying the people who write for them.
Post reply on HN