One more reason to use AdGuard on Android.
Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
271–280 of 282 posts
Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
#272It 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…
Adtech companies know exactly who is responsible. Every ad on any serious network is approved before going live. Every single auction is logged, that's just basic tracking and necessary for billing anyway. The problem is that there are no serious consequences in this industry. Ad fraud isn't a technical problem, it's a business problem, one that most companies are not incentivized to solve or prevent.
This is simply not true. I work for a top 3 major ad exchange, and there's only so much validation that can happen when you process 10s of millions of requests per second that have to leave your system in 40ms.
Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like an impossible arms race though (to fake viewable) plus it looks like this fraud was a VPAID container. VPAID adds a overhead compared to the possibility of a native implemented VAST player. If there was a way to verify & build trust with pubs/networks to run vast tags natively, no JS, I would buy that inventory. Newer vast also has a viewable event, but again is on the pub to specify legitimately hence the…
Between players, ad network wrappers, third party service wrappers, creative teams getting the spec wrong, more requests for ad blockers to block etc., VPAID is a mess in terms of successful playback though. It's like developer for early 2000s browsers when you have to test in multiple tools and work around multiple quirks. I can see why advertisers might not want to bother.
I'm with you. I would prefer the much simpler VAST (maybe even change to json lol) with trusted/verifiable publishers. It can be natively implemented and not have to call webviews and all kinds of js bloat! I just dont know how to make that happen. In essence it's what FB offers just using their own internal video delivery platform.
Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adtech companies know exactly who is responsible. Every ad on any serious network is approved before going live. Every single auction is logged, that's just basic tracking and necessary for billing anyway. The problem is that there are no serious consequences in this industry. Ad fraud isn't a technical problem, it's a business problem, one that most companies are not incentivized to solve or prevent.
This is simply not true. I work for a top 3 major ad exchange, and there's only so much validation that can happen when you process 10s of millions of requests per second that have to leave your system in 40ms.
Like I said, this is a business problem. Those major ad exchanges should stop working with bad actors. 95% of ad fraud is coming from known sources and/or blatantly noticeable.
Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Sorry I don't have anything more substantive to add, but yes, I would be liable.
Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
The advertising industry was not merely or limited to "a small sign on a local business" before the Internet. Not in the last few decades, or even in the last few centuries. Moving the goalposts doesn't help anyone.
The internet existed in a major fashion before there was any notable amount of advertising on the internet . The original goalpost was not "advertising did not exist in the entire world". The discussion of the origin of advertising is a different issue. But I'd say that "advertising" as normally understood didn't really exist before mass-produced newspapers at the very least , so that's less than four centuries and n…
> The internet existed in a major fashion before there was any notable amount of advertising on the internet.
We got Netscape Navigator, Yahoo! and the famous AT&T banner ad all in the same year. Even still, we had irc, email and newsgroup spam in the preceding decades (even if you can still call that "the Internet"). I would see advertising prior to this on commercial online platforms (like AOL and compuserve) -- but I can accept that this might not have been considered "the Internet".
I was thinking maybe you define the few years between "the WWW" was invented (1991, if you believe some accounts) to when it became popular (1993, maybe) as some kind of "golden era" of Internet when there weren't any banner ads, despite the fact early websites were directly advertising for eachother (a kind of "sign on the local business" perhaps?). This interpretation seems unkind though.
So I'm left thinking you and these couple other people are just wrong.
I simply can't imagine the Internet before advertising, and I doubt most people could. I have been online since the 1980s and I have in that entire time seen ads, so if you actually meant something by this statement, I'll need some help unpacking it.
Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet existed in a major fashion before there was any notable amount of advertising on the internet . The original goalpost was not "advertising did not exist in the entire world". The discussion of the origin of advertising is a different issue. But I'd say that "advertising" as normally understood didn't really exist before mass-produced newspapers at the very least , so that's less than four centuries and n…
> The internet existed in a major fashion before there was any notable amount of advertising on the internet. We got Netscape Navigator, Yahoo! and the famous AT&T banner ad all in the same year. Even still, we had irc, email and newsgroup spam in the preceding decades (even if you can still call that "the Internet"). I would see advertising prior to this on commercial online platforms (like AOL and compuserve) -- bu…
I'm not counting spam, and I'm not counting sites that link to each other for free. And by "notable" I mean something like 10%, not an experiment or "it existed somewhere".
Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything Facebook's clicks are much more reliable than Google's since Facebook shows almost all its ads on its O&O properties where there is 0 potential for fraud. A lot Google's mobile ads are via AdMob which are shown on third party apps which Google doesn't own - which can lead to scenarios where the publisher may be upto some mischief.
AdMob is O&O by Google. I would say mischief is doable on both platforms since it is up to the developer to implement either SDK within their apps. This is why it is important to monitor conversion rates and be selective as to which apps your ads appear on. You could select Google's apps only for example.
You don't know the definition of O&O. Please get a sense of what you are debating about before typing away.
O&O means that the app/site where, in this case, the ad is shown is owned and operated by Google. That is absolutely not true for AdMob.
Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
AdMob is O&O by Google. I would say mischief is doable on both platforms since it is up to the developer to implement either SDK within their apps. This is why it is important to monitor conversion rates and be selective as to which apps your ads appear on. You could select Google's apps only for example.
You don't know the definition of O&O. Please get a sense of what you are debating about before typing away. O&O means that the app/site where, in this case, the ad is shown is owned and operated by Google. That is absolutely not true for AdMob.
No, I do know the meaning of owned and operated. What I stated is true as well, admob is O&O by Google. Facebook ads can appear on non O&O content the same as admob via their audience network. Both networks have options to advertise on just their O&O website or apps. Do you understand now?
Re: Ad Fraud Scheme Drained Users’ Batteries By Running Hidden Video Ads In Android
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't know the definition of O&O. Please get a sense of what you are debating about before typing away. O&O means that the app/site where, in this case, the ad is shown is owned and operated by Google. That is absolutely not true for AdMob.
No, I do know the meaning of owned and operated. What I stated is true as well, admob is O&O by Google. Facebook ads can appear on non O&O content the same as admob via their audience network. Both networks have options to advertise on just their O&O website or apps. Do you understand now?
Comparing AdMob to Facebook Audience Network is like comparing a lemon to a watermelon. Majority of FB's display revenue comes from ads on their own properties. This is not true for Google where their display network dominates their display ad spend.
Anyways, the fact that I have to explain all these things tells me you are pretty new to this and don't understand things deeply enough to have this debate. I will sign off.