Ad blocker that clicks on the ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#231

Post by Rudism » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 7:10 PM UTC

I worked in the online advertising industry for a number of years at my last job, and I can pretty confidently say that the worst thing that software like this might do is potentially earn a bit more money for some publishers using the ad networks that are being blocked (if they're lucky enough to be running any pay-per-click campaigns).

Nobody in the industry will even take notice that this exists. If they do accidentally come across it, far from being scared or "taking notice," it would at best circulate around a few internal email lists to give everyone a good laugh.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if this was actually developed by an ad network as a joke--they know that ad-block users aren't going to be making them any money anyway, so why not put them to use as what would essentially amount to a free bot network of very natural-looking traffic to send to their advertisers? Sure, it might lower conversion rates by a fraction of a fraction of a percent, but any amount of natural-looking traffic coming through to advertisers that isn't obvious bot traffic only increases the perceived quality of the ad network. It's much easier to shuffle the blame for poor conversion rates off to the advertiser themselves than it is to explain away low traffic volume or bot clicks.

Bot traffic is usually pretty easy to identify--very low quality traffic all coming from the same block of IPs, geographical region, or publisher. The quality is basically a measure of conversion rate for that subset of traffic compared against the average conversion rate across the entire network. In the (unlikely) event that something like this product catches on and sees a high enough adoption rate to actually affect the numbers across entire ad networks, it would lower traffic quality equally across the board, thus making it essentially undetectable. It's when that starts to happen that advertisers and publishers start to get desperate and we start seeing them play new and shadier games. You might be happy and safe behind your ad-clicking blocker, but grandma and gramps who don't have the technical know-how to protect themselves will start to see new fake download button ads, pop-unders, auto-playing video ads, and other gross tactics being used to try to compensate.

My time in the industry has pretty heavily biased me against online advertising quite a bit (I run ad blockers, no-referrer, strict whitelist-only cookie policies, etc), but I can definitely say that running this extension is pretty antithetical to its stated intention.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#232

Post by dserodio » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 7:13 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #188

acdha wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I dislike the ad model but this is dangerously wrong: you pay your ISP for transit – unless you're subscribing to a specific site, nobody else gets a dime from you to pay for their costs. Unless subscriptions or micropayments catch on, that means that sites are either going to rely on ads or will be limited to organizations with…

I agree that the point you're replying to is ridiculous, but I still think there's no moral imperative. An equivalent moral case is broadcast TV ads. You aren't obligated to stay in the room and pay attention; going to the kitchen, using Tivo, and flipping channels are all morally ok. Part of the reason that subscriptions and micropayments haven't caught on is that people put up with ads. If ads stop working as a bus…

OTOH, the alternative to ad-supported content is paying directly for the content you want to read, which is even worse from a privacy POV because publishers will know exactly who you are instead of only knowing which "demographic" you belong to.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#233

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 7:18 PM UTC

dserodio wrote: post #232

wpietri wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the point you're replying to is ridiculous, but I still think there's no moral imperative. An equivalent moral case is broadcast TV ads. You aren't obligated to stay in the room and pay attention; going to the kitchen, using Tivo, and flipping channels are all morally ok. Part of the reason that subscriptions and micropayments haven't caught on is that people put up with ads. If ads stop working as a bus…

OTOH, the alternative to ad-supported content is paying directly for the content you want to read, which is even worse from a privacy POV because publishers will know exactly who you are instead of only knowing which "demographic" you belong to.

Unless payment goes through some kind of anonymization service.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#234

Post by belorn » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 7:22 PM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #216

belorn wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets extrapolate this to the real world and see if implied permission works. You actively walk into a bar. For what ever reason, you can't pay your bill so the bar owner break your leg as a lesson. Alternative, the bar owner will sell you into slavery so you can pay your bill. Should we imply that you gave permission for all this by walking into the bar? What if there is a 400 pages long contract, which by entering,…

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. There are no implications since the already in place rules of commerce would preclude any ambiguity. I'll throw you and your analogy a bone though. You walk into a bar, bars are smokey, you don't want to smell like smoke, but you want a cocktail more than you don't want to smell like smoke. You've implied that you're okay with smelling like smoke as long as you get your martini.

The rules of commerce exist outset the net, I fully agree on that. If we applied similar rules on the net, the implied permission will go away in favor of a common set of rules.

And that is what the EU is trying to do for private data. When it is illegal to track users, then users can't silently give permission by visiting the website. The whole question about implied permission goes away when rules of commerce specify what is and isn't allowed.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#235

Post by belorn » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 7:23 PM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #216

belorn wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets extrapolate this to the real world and see if implied permission works. You actively walk into a bar. For what ever reason, you can't pay your bill so the bar owner break your leg as a lesson. Alternative, the bar owner will sell you into slavery so you can pay your bill. Should we imply that you gave permission for all this by walking into the bar? What if there is a 400 pages long contract, which by entering,…

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. There are no implications since the already in place rules of commerce would preclude any ambiguity. I'll throw you and your analogy a bone though. You walk into a bar, bars are smokey, you don't want to smell like smoke, but you want a cocktail more than you don't want to smell like smoke. You've implied that you're okay with smelling like smoke as long as you get your martini.

The rules of commerce exist outset the net, I fully agree on that. If we applied similar rules on the net, the implied permission will go away in favor of a common set of rules.

And that is what the EU is trying to do for private data. When it is illegal to track users, then users can't silently give permission by visiting the website. The whole question about implied permission goes away when rules of commerce specify what is and isn't allowed.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#236

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 7:34 PM UTC

justinpaulson wrote: post #169

forca wrote: post #129

Earlier 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…

So you don't mind ads as long as they are completely random ads that you may not care about. But if they try to get some info about you to show ads that you might actually be interested in, then you are pissed? What!? What do you think they are doing with this information? All they are doing is catering ads to your preferences.

You raise an interesting point - that there is a tension between respecting the privacy of a user and making ads most useful to them.

That said, I don't think the rest of your post is well supported. Surely they are using the info to try and target ads, but what prevents them from using it in other ways (including selling it to other people who want to use it in other ways) if they think it can make them more money? Probably, most of these companies aren't going to knowingly sell it to anyone who will use it illegally because they could be culpable... but there are probably things I don't want done to me that don't involve actual illegality. An example off the top of my head might be feeding embarrassing info to a tabloid. And even that stays out of the realm of "what if things really went bad?"

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#237

Post by kamikazi » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 7:57 PM UTC

forca wrote: post #220

eli wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And car dealers sell the same car to two different people for two different prices. And Proctor & Gamble puts the same shampoo in an expensive bottle and a cheap bottle and sells them side by side. I understand why you think this is unfair, but it just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

It's a big deal because it's disingenuous.

Hi forca: With respect to your comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304139) where you stated you needed some surgery and sought help with figuring out your options? I replied to it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8334691) which you missed. I can help since I'm launching this very service.

As you don't have any contact on your profile so there was no way for me to reach you. I even contacted YC admin and they confirmed you haven't left an email in your profile :( Since then I've been tracking your comments page to maybe catch you live.

So let's talk? I can answer any/all of your queries and the ones I don't know the answer to I can figure out. Think of me as no-obligation, friendly discussion to clarify all your doubts. I hope you see this message.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#238

Post by pdkl95 » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 8:00 PM UTC

justinpaulson wrote: post #181

DanBC wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i) I see an unfamiliar term. I search for it. For the next X weeks I am showered with stupid useless adverts for something that I have zero interest in. ii) I am[1] a person with alcoholism / gambling addict / person with anorexia / etc. This informs my search habits. Showing alcohol ads is immoral anyway, but showing those ads to a person with alcoholism is sub-optimal for many reasons. iii) I like gory movies. My 5…

I can see the argument for ii. But the ads could just as easily be for rehabilitation clinics. For i, a single data point is not creating all of your targetted ads. And so what if it is, it is still closer to what you might be interested in than completely random ads. iii. Is your own problem for sharing devices and accounts with a 5 year old when you use it for "adult" things. iv. Sure, ads suck, but that metal dete…

> it is still closer to what you might be interested in than completely random ads.

This is projection; "interest" is not the only criteria add are judged by. For instance, I immediately killfile anything animated on a page; something moving next to what I am trying to read often makes the reading impossible. Even though "interesting" ads may be somewhat popular preference, when humans are involved the variance is going to be large.

> Is your own problem for sharing devices and accounts with a 5 year old when you use it for "adult" things.

You are assuming more than one device even exists. Regardless, in the real world there idea that there is any kind of clean separation between devices and accounts is patently false.

The basic idea that it is even possible to predict interest from record of which ads were clicked on or what queries are searched for is very presumptuous, but it the larger problem is "data mining", especially in the long term as the data accumulates. I recommend this[1] very interesting article published couple years ago, about some of the data mining that Target has been doing for at least a decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.h...

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#239

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 9:05 PM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #208

logfromblammo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ad network cannot tell the difference between a real click and a fake click based on the HTTP request itself. They have to rely on probability models to guess whether clicks are real or fake. The mere existence of an extension like this should prompt them to reconsider their options. If you think about the ad model for print and broadcast media, they don't bother trying to track eyeballs. They know it's impossible…

> An ad network cannot tell the difference between a real click and a fake click based on the HTTP request itself. No they can't, however they can tell what is a real user and what is not. Real users don't click every single ad presented to them on every single page. Real users don't click ads as soon as a page loads. Real users don't click on all ads at the same or near-the-same time. (If this worked, without gettin…

You really can't tell the difference between a real person who decides to click one ad per page view and a script that does the same thing. Whatever criteria you use to differentiate between fake and real can be reverse engineered and fed back into the robot to look more human.

Never mind about cyborgs, or script-enhanced humans, which are what users of this add-on will become. You can't even tell if a script was launched by a human or by another script.

It's the Iocaine Powder of ad-serving. The only way to win is to be immune to the effects of playing.

In this case, only ad-serving networks that do not change their visible behavior in response to clicks can win: no site-bans in response to visitor behavior, and no click-through bonuses or payments per impression. And that is the sort of ad network I find most tolerable.

Pay the site operator based upon sound judgement as to what the value of ads on those pages are worth, and toss the site traffic analysis in the trash. You need to have an actual human determining how popular a site is likely to be, because an automated script is never going to be able to differentiate between human and another automated script that knows--or can guess at--the first script's algorithms. Do it correctly, and you won't need to compensate for temporary spikes from HN, or Slashdot, or SomethingAwful, or a Chan, or an SEO firm, or anyone else. The ad campaign pays out according to the agreement, and if the site becomes permanently more popular, the operator and the salesperson renegotiate the rate afterward.

That involves actual ad sales employees with some familiarity with the subject matter. If you purely fight bots versus bots, the programmer with the most knowledge of the other guy's program wins. And in this case, that advantages the attacker more.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#240

Post by pdkl95 » Mon, Oct 27, 2014, 9:13 PM UTC

dserodio wrote: post #232

wpietri wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the point you're replying to is ridiculous, but I still think there's no moral imperative. An equivalent moral case is broadcast TV ads. You aren't obligated to stay in the room and pay attention; going to the kitchen, using Tivo, and flipping channels are all morally ok. Part of the reason that subscriptions and micropayments haven't caught on is that people put up with ads. If ads stop working as a bus…

OTOH, the alternative to ad-supported content is paying directly for the content you want to read, which is even worse from a privacy POV because publishers will know exactly who you are instead of only knowing which "demographic" you belong to.

Paying directly changes the relationship significantly - a business is generally going to pay attention to their customers that produce their revenue than the "free" accounts that are the merely the product being sold to advertisers.

The Onion was right[1]. In the rush to sell out their "users" to to whomever is willing to pay, a lot of people seem to have come to believe that advertising is the only way to the internet can work.

The internet enabled many new ways of publishing due it removing most of the per-transaction costs. I suspect we haven't even seen most of these methods. While "Kickstarter" style funding and Wikipedia's "public television style" requests for donations, while interesting experiments, are only the first generation of what is enabled by the internet.

Unfortunately, untested and unproven (by somebody else) ideas do imply some amount of risk, which scares a lot of people back into the traditional method where the advertisers get to paint over everything.

edit: forgot URL

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o