If the end goal is to reduce third-party tracking by ad networks, then actually loading the ads, nevermind fake-clicking, certainly seems terribly misguided, and that's putting aside that anything short of a proper click is probably going to trigger ad networks bot detection measures.
Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
171–180 of 253 posts
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. It's simple, think of all the completely-non-ad-supported sites you've used, and imagine an internet where those are the only ones around. Basically that would largely be sites hosted by the government, companies (whose profit comes from something else), educational institutions, nonprofits, and individuals. From my experience, I've seen a lot of great conte…
Wikipedia doesn't have ads -- it follows fundraising/donations model of NPR which is far easier to bake in to relevant content. In a world without ads, this might be a model for Stackoverflow and other largish sites with largish communities.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
I glady pay for Internet access, cable TV, the cinema, magazines, other content I view. The problem I have is with tracking. Ads should never do anything save show an ad. There should be no attempt to learn about me or track me or sell my data. Magazines I buy don't track me. I ignore ads in the cinema by whiling away that time on my mobile, I FF thru DVRd programs at home. I've paid already. I'm not viewing your dre…
Bullshit. There are hundreds of extensions that block third-party cookies and any form of tracking; what we are talking about here is hurting any content creator who wants to monetize their content without creating a paywall and therefore dealing with customers, chargebacks, credit card fraud, marketing, ads (the irony).
No one is advocating anything except not tracking users. I already block ads like most people here. They are a vector for malware, they track users, they sell that data.
Make money by charging for content. I miss the old days when people had to pay for stuff with tangible money, not with their anonymity. I would gladly pay to access content I found useful, just no tracking. Be content with the money and move on. No need to profile me, sell my profile to make more money. I pay to use several sites. I also block ads on these site, because the third parties don't respect privacy.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really want to live in a world where every single site is behind a paywall? because that is what you are advocating.
I glady pay for Internet access, cable TV, the cinema, magazines, other content I view. The problem I have is with tracking. Ads should never do anything save show an ad. There should be no attempt to learn about me or track me or sell my data. Magazines I buy don't track me. I ignore ads in the cinema by whiling away that time on my mobile, I FF thru DVRd programs at home. I've paid already. I'm not viewing your dre…
Working in technology, you probably make a lot of money. Could be wrong. $5 a month probably means more to the general population.
Personally, I feel far less privacy when making online payments and giving out my credit card or trusting some middle provider than I do when visiting a site that has ads which I can disable.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
well they will be able to identify that the user is responsible, not the host. hopefully
How?
Same way they do now. They don't publicize the algorithms i believe
http://www.google.com/ads/adtrafficquality/invalid-click-pro...
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#176one of the main reasons why I use adblock is to avoid malware (either from sites that are malicious that I don't know about, or legitimate sites that have been compromised to display malware ads, or legit sites that use an ad provider that has been compromised to display malware ads)... so no, I do not want to click on those ads, thank you very much.
NoScript and domain blocking using the hosts file is the best I've found to stop tracking. AdBlock is such a resource hog...
[deleted]
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#177Bad 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…
It'd be interesting to see a mock-up of Stack Overflow with pay-to-play features.
Search is 10 SOBucks; search using tags is 15 SOBucks; asking a question is 20 SOBucks; reading the answer is another 20 SOBucks.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#178I 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
I am not sure I agree with the implication, but I agree with the conclusion, for a different reason.
If I send an HTTP request to a server, and that server replies with content, this does not imply that the creators or publishers of that content have the right to dictate how I should enjoy that content on my own machine, or that I have any moral imperative to follow their wishes. I may be using an ad-blocker, I may be blocking images, I may be using lynx, I may be just saving it to view it offline later. It's my choice. If you do not agree, do not provide your content for free to anyone who asks.
There may be a moral imperative to support the creators and publishers of content you enjoy. This does not imply that it must be done via the convoluted route of viewing the content in a certain way so that a certain third party believes that a human mind has registered a certain message and pays the publisher for this.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even close with the analogy. Unless the content is behind a paywall, it's "free". Want to make money? Charge access. If your content is THAT compelling, people will line up and hand you money. Using a backhanded revenue machine like ads that track me and violate my "anonymity" is beyond the pale. So, yes. If I arrive on your site and there is no paywall, I will gladly view said content without allowing ads. If th…
You are free to ignore or block their ads. Sites may complain about blocking, but (almost?) none prevent it. But the sites are also free to put ads on their sites, why wouldn't they be, and how do you feel that this is "beyond the pale"? The people who run those sites are just trying to make a living in the same way that most popular media has tried to make a living for the past century. But actively trying to disrup…
It's more like a donation box that automatically takes money out of your pocket unless you are vigilant, with most patrons not noticing that it took their money. The analogy sort of fails because it's not a zero sum gain. You could actually argue that targeted ads are a benefit to users.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bullshit. There are hundreds of extensions that block third-party cookies and any form of tracking; what we are talking about here is hurting any content creator who wants to monetize their content without creating a paywall and therefore dealing with customers, chargebacks, credit card fraud, marketing, ads (the irony).
No one is advocating anything except not tracking users. I already block ads like most people here. They are a vector for malware, they track users, they sell that data. Make money by charging for content. I miss the old days when people had to pay for stuff with tangible money, not with their anonymity. I would gladly pay to access content I found useful, just no tracking. Be content with the money and move on. No n…
I repeat myself: Its extremely naive to believe everyone who needs access to the content in the internet has a credit card to pay for every bit of it that they need.