11–20 of 282 posts
I should try sending HEAD requests to ad servers, to see if they return a redirect. No idea what the ad brokerage systems will do with those.
As someone in another, related, thread said: AdNauseum users will account for X% of clicks, and advertisers/publishers will simply take clicks - X% to get the real number, and we're back to where we started. (EDIT: credit where credit is due: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13221653 )
(edit: if it works. someone else has written that these fake clicks simply get filtered)
1. They say it's legally not click fraud. To me it sounds like regular fraud: "deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right". I'm not concerned with breaking the law I just don't want to act in the spirit of it.
2. This could hurt small startups that are very carefully managing an ad budget. They say the market will adjust, but until it does small startups take a hit. People we know.
3. I dislike activism without clear objectives. I see no list of guidelines here or good behavior that companies could adopt to immediately place them on the side of the good guys.
I use Firefox largely because it's the most hackable browser. I tweak Firefox to do and not do several things:
- I don't allow sites to see my history - I don't allow peerconnect - I don't allow WebRTC (shows private address schemas) - I don't allow much JS - I don't allow fingerprinting beyond pure basics - I don't allow HTTP/S referrer
I do block everything not associated with the pure content of the page. This is getting more difficult, but the tools to help are keeping pace.
I'm out on this. 1. They say it's legally not click fraud. To me it sounds like regular fraud: "deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right". I'm not concerned with breaking the law I just don't want to act in the spirit of it. 2. This could hurt small startups that are very carefully managing an ad budget. They say the market will adjust, but until it does small startups take…
I dislike ads as much as the next person (and indeed run uBlock on nearly every site), but I'd feel wrong using this because of the cost to the advertisers. It would be further lining the pockets of ad networks while increasing expenses for, at least in some cases, legitimate businesses. Sure, it's a bit of fighting fire with fire, but I'd rather not be an unnecessary expense for someone in my fight against intrusive…
Advertisers will just lower their bids, so it mostly hurts the publishers of the websites you visit.
... who will then have to revert to a more sane monetization scheme, which doesn't mess with their visitors' data.
I'm out on this. 1. They say it's legally not click fraud. To me it sounds like regular fraud: "deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right". I'm not concerned with breaking the law I just don't want to act in the spirit of it. 2. This could hurt small startups that are very carefully managing an ad budget. They say the market will adjust, but until it does small startups take…
I dislike ads as much as the next person (and indeed run uBlock on nearly every site), but I'd feel wrong using this because of the cost to the advertisers. It would be further lining the pockets of ad networks while increasing expenses for, at least in some cases, legitimate businesses. Sure, it's a bit of fighting fire with fire, but I'd rather not be an unnecessary expense for someone in my fight against intrusive…
Advertisers will just lower their bids, so it mostly hurts the publishers of the websites you visit.