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

Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 282 posts

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#131

Post by Tsubasachan »

easytiger wrote: post #103
dkersten wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A’s Banksy said: > ...They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they…

So no different than leering self interested political posturing masquerading as altruistic innocuity

This is fair. Both sides of the debate have made this ideological. The pro advertising side make it sound like it is your capitalist duty to suffer ads.

No. Fuck that, I block annoyances in my life if I can. And I still buy crap don't worry.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#132

Post by Moru »

TomMarius wrote: post #64
ndnxhs wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet existed before advertising and it could continue to exist without it. People still desire instant communication and they would pay for it if a free option did not exist. A lot of garbage like Facebook would fall and real social networks would take place with real interactions not algorithms trying to drive fake engagement.

I don't agree. The internet definitely did not exist in any form that would be today seen as sufficient ever before. The sheer scale makes it impossible, advertising is the only way poor people could afford it and pay for it without paying money at the same time (so the developer now has a new option too). The options these companies that exist thanks to ads gave to all businesses in my country are enormous and have…

There is other ways to see ads. The companies don't pay money for advertising, they pay to make poor people buy things they don't need. If they would pay the site owner directly, maybe they would not be as poor?

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#133

Post by jonahbenton »

kartickv wrote: post #109
hannob wrote: post #65

It is interesting how this article starts. A guy has an app which drains users batteries. But it's not his fault of course, because it's the ad company. Except the ad company says it's not their fault, because the ad came from some other company. This fingerpointing points to one of the core problems of the ad industry: They created a system where nobody knows who's responsible for anything, so malware and fraud has…

Is there an ad network that doesn't use JS? You make a call to the ad network server, it returns an image, you display it in a native UIImageView (not a web view), and if the user taps it, you open a URL in a web view. Unless the user taps the ad, no JS or HTML is involved, which eliminates the possibility of such tricks. I looked for such a library a while back, but didn't find any.

Part of what js does in that ecosystem is support independent accounting for the advertiser of whether their ad was viewed and by who/what...which on the margins of course can still be tricked/gamed, but which for mainstream advertising is important.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#134

Post by alecb »

runn1ng wrote: post #128
hannob wrote: post #65

It is interesting how this article starts. A guy has an app which drains users batteries. But it's not his fault of course, because it's the ad company. Except the ad company says it's not their fault, because the ad came from some other company. This fingerpointing points to one of the core problems of the ad industry: They created a system where nobody knows who's responsible for anything, so malware and fraud has…

Yeah, many supposedly legit websites (even large media companies) run these very scammy "man from YOUR LOCATION got rich in 20 days!" "one weird trick to get younger" ads that ultimately lead to some scam But if you ask them, it's not their fault, but the ad company (Google), which in turn will point to a different company, etc And in the end, people are scammed and Google gets a bit richer, but it's nobody's fault o…

FWIW the companies responsible for those ads are Taboola, Outbrain, and Revcontent. I posted one especially egregious example last week on r/adops:

https://www.reddit.com/r/adops/comments/b0n57e/its_embarrass...

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#135

Post by snaky »

mirimir wrote: post #36
Zak wrote: post #11

I am amused that the article detailing a very good reason to use an adblocker asked me to disable mine.

Hey, there are no ad blockers for apps, right? Messing with other apps is a ToS violation for both Google and Apple, as I recall. Edit: OK, you can. But not with other apps from the official stores.

That's the greatest and most underrated opportunity for F-Droid.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#136

Post by roenxi »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #111
roenxi wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Voters are critical to democracy. Advertising isn't critical to society Advertising is absolutely critical to society. Without advertising we can't figure out what companies are selling, because they can't tell us. That puts a real crimp of having a functioning economy. I don't have statistics handy, but I assure you that if advertising were generally banned there would be a lot less, say, smartphone owners. If you…

That's motte-and-bailey defense. Technically advertising is about informing consumers what's on the market. In reality, it's everything but. Real-world advertising is near-universally dishonest and manipulative. Getting rid of that would not preclude companies from making available (note the pull, not push, approach) information on what they're selling. > It isn't a zero sum game. It is value add. People can't exchan…

> In reality, it's everything but.

Well, if you have evidence of that then my interest would be piqued. But I must admit I suspect you're just being cynical. By far and away most of the ads I see are honest but with an agenda.

Manipulative is a debatable term. Advertisers are manipulating you in the same way I'm manipulating you right now - I have an opinion and I want you to agree with me. I don't really see how you can justify getting unhappy about that. It seems pretty reasonable given that they are ultimately funding whatever it is you are looking at at the time.

> catalogs, phone books, trade shows, and Internet search engines

Those are literally compendiums of ads, except search engines. But in this instance, the consumer is proactively searching for ads. Clearly the ad is providing some value to consumers. And the idea that consumers should attend trade shows to work out what their options are is patently absurd.

And working out exactly what search engines would look like if they were not ad supported is beyond me. I assume you'd be paying some sort of subscription free for the pleasure of basically googling ads. Seems a bit backwards.

> People can trivially...

No they can't, decisions about things outside a person't domain of expertise aren't as easy as you want to pretend they are. What the consumers really want is (a) cheap and (b) one of what everyone else has. Advertising isn't going to help with (a) but it is fantastically good at (b).

Figuring out what everyone else is doing is hard work. That is one of a couple of value-adding opportunities for an ad.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#137

Post by reitanqild »

roenxi wrote: post #124
reitanqild wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly I think your 99% figure just suggests you are browsing the wrong websites. Maybe visit parts of the internet that are less sketchy. This is not true and I'm gonna provide some evidence: I am a conservative christian[0]. I get those ads as well. My browsing habits: - stuff linked from hn - local news - one mainstream newspaper - fringe political papers from the left and right (mostly don't agree with any of…

> I get those ads as well. Yeah, everyone does. Are you suggesting you see almost literally 100 such ads for every ad advertising something legit? Because for me they are the 20% dross for 80% potentially useful ads I see. Honestly, the businesses in your region of the woods are truly woeful at advertising, and should probably spend more money on it. Realistically, if what you suggest is true, something has probably…

> Because for me they are the 20% dross for 80% potentially useful ads I see.

Lucky you. For me it seems way below 50% useful.

The closest I get to relevant ads are if I search for something like x hosting, then I'll maybe see ads for that for a while.

Im not against ads:

In fact I'd like if local shops informed online whenever their deal of the week came out (they sometimes do and that is a click from me if for some reason the ad isn't blocked).

Same goes for other interesting ads if I see them, which means max twice a year.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#138

Post by asdkfjasl »

stestagg wrote: post #69
hannob wrote: post #65

It is interesting how this article starts. A guy has an app which drains users batteries. But it's not his fault of course, because it's the ad company. Except the ad company says it's not their fault, because the ad came from some other company. This fingerpointing points to one of the core problems of the ad industry: They created a system where nobody knows who's responsible for anything, so malware and fraud has…

Just as if you were to buy a child’s toy that has a secret embedded camera that streams to some foreign server. It may be the manufacturers fault, but the person who sold it to you (the provider) is liable. Should be the same here

> the person who sold it to you (the provider) is liable

I don't think that's true unless they knew it had this behavior or were negligent in some way.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#139

Post by atomical »

hannob wrote: post #65

It is interesting how this article starts. A guy has an app which drains users batteries. But it's not his fault of course, because it's the ad company. Except the ad company says it's not their fault, because the ad came from some other company. This fingerpointing points to one of the core problems of the ad industry: They created a system where nobody knows who's responsible for anything, so malware and fraud has…

This is why I use Brave browser. The internet needs ads but the ads should be whitelisted.

Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android

#140

Post by asdkfjasl »

afureta wrote: post #121
bluesign wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" secret embedded camera " I bought "child's toy" and sold you "child's today", you expect seller to check every toy if there is "secret camera" ?

Yeah, I expect the seller to know what they're selling.

Interesting. So if you buy such a device for a gift, not knowing that it has a secret camera, and then decide you don't want it and resell it on Ebay, you'd agree that now it is you who are liable?
Post reply on HN