| ▲ | Terretta 16 hours ago |
| Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face. Any jurisdiction where this is supposedly illegal, it hasn't been court tested seriously.* Per your link: "What you're describing is essentially the extension AdNauseam. So far they have not had any legal troubles, but they technically could." That stance or an assertion it's not illegal is consistent throughout the thread, provided you aren't clicking your own ads. "The industry" thinks you shouldn't be allowed to fast forward your own VCR through an ad either. They can take a flying .. lesson. * Disclaimer: I don't know if that's true, but it sounds true. |
|
| ▲ | gruez 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| >Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face. No, the illegal-ness doesn't come from the clicking, it comes from the fact you're clicking with the intention of defrauding someone. That's also why filling out a credit card application isn't illegal, but filling out the same credit card application with phony details is. |
| |
| ▲ | _factor 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The intent isn’t to defraud. The intent is to curb their uninvited data collection and anti-utility influence on the internet. You’re not defrauding anyone if you have your extension click all ads in the background and make a personalized list for you that you can choose to review. The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | >The intent isn’t to defraud. The intent is to curb their uninvited data collection and anti-utility influence on the internet. How's this any different than going around and filling out fake credit applications to stop "uninvited data collection" by banks/credit bureaus or whatever? >The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud. You're still harming the business, so my guess would be something like tortious interference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference | | |
| ▲ | Tor3 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >How's this any different than going around and filling out fake credit applications to stop "uninvited data collection" by banks/credit bureaus or whatever? It's so different that it can't even be compared. There's nothing similar there. >>The intent is convenience and privacy, not fraud. > You're still harming the business, so my guess would be something like tortious interference. No, you're not harming the business. You're simply not following the business idea of the "business". Anyone can have a business idea of some type. Not a single person on earth has any obligation to fulfill that business idea. But somehow some people believe the opposite. | |
| ▲ | _factor 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In a credit application there is a signature and binding contract. If I fill in false information knowingly, the intent is clear and written. If you send me an unsolicited mailer with a microchip that tracks my eyes and face as I read it, you’ve already pushed too far. To then claim my using a robot to read it for me is fraud ignores the invasion of privacy you’ve already instituted without my express consent (digital ads are this). It’s not fraud if it’s self-defense from corporate overreach. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | >In a credit application there is a signature and binding contract. If I fill in false information knowingly, the intent is clear and written. At best that gets you off the hook of fraud charges, but not tort claims, which are civil, and don't require intent. >It’s not fraud if it’s self-defense from corporate overreach. There's no concept of "self-defense" when it comes to fraud, or torts. | | |
| ▲ | jniles 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I am super curious how far this goes. If, hypothetically, I wore some sort of glasses that kept facial recognition from identifying and tracking me at my local grocery store, would that constitute a civil infringement in the future? What about extensions that skip embedded ads in a YouTube video? Is that tortuous interference with the view counter that creators use to market their reach? | |
| ▲ | 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | rvnx 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Even one of the users here above mentions the malicious intent: > I hate advertisers so I'm gonna get back at them by making them pay more. | |
| ▲ | Gabrys1 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What if someone unironically wants to automatically click all the ads to support the websites they visit | | |
| ▲ | billyp-rva 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You'd be doing way more harm than good. The battle between ad networks and unscrupulous website owners using bots to fake ad clicks has been going on forever. | |
| ▲ | freitasm 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ads pay in different forms. Some pay per click (PPC), some pay per thousand impressions (CPM). Clicking with the intention of helping doesn't help. Only clicking with genuine interest helps. | | |
| ▲ | c22 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think the question was about whether this would actually help the advertisers. (I suspect it was rhetorical.) Of course the defense will now be harder to execute for anyone who reads this thread. |
| |
| ▲ | rvnx 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Some sort of Robinhood of advertising, taking from the big, to give to the small |
| |
| ▲ | bilekas 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > it comes from the fact you're clicking with the intention of defrauding someone. You're defrauding nobody. People purchase visibility and clicks when they purchase advertising. not conversions or sales. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | >People purchase visibility and clicks when they purchase advertising. not conversions or sales. Again, you're ignoring intent in all of this. It's not illegal to default on a loan, or even to refuse to pay it back (eg. bankruptcy), but it is illegal to take out a loan with the specific intent to not pay it back (eg. if you know you're planning on declare bankruptcy right afterwards). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | y-curious 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Telling me this is illegal has made me want to download it more. “IT IS ILLEGAL TO ATTACK THIS NONCONSENSUAL SPAM SIR” |
| |
| ▲ | Tor3 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Some years ago I was by chance listening to a radio program about advertising. They interviewed a marketing guy and he insisted that it was illegal for you to visit the bathroom or the kitchen while the ad was running (on TV or on the radio). Completely nuts. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | That reminds me of the time I was flipping through TV channels and stopped in on TBN to see what color Jan's hair was going to be. Instead, I found Paul preaching about how anyone watching his programming and NOT sending him donations was stealing from him. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dhruv3006 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Whats the case in EU? Any idea? |
|
| ▲ | WarmWash 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Don't tell me I'm not allowed to click buttons you put in my face. To be fair, you put it in your own face, by visiting the site... |
| |
| ▲ | rvnx 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean, (not to you, as we go in the same direction, in general), just block it. The goal of Adnauseam was to hurt Google, and other big adnetworks, from what I understand. By blocking: -> Advertiser is not harmed
-> For the adnetwork: No ad revenue
-> Publisher is not harmed
-> Pages load faster
--> Google is earning less (if this is part of your ideological fight) and you get rewarded with a better experience, and you are legally safe== With fake clicks: -> Advertiser is harmed
-> Publisher is harmed
-> Adnetwork is okayish with the situation (to a certain point)
-> You hurt websites and products that you like (or would statistically like)--> Google is accidentally earning more revenue (at least temporarily, until you get shadow-banned), your computer / page loads slows down and you enter a legally gray area. (+ the side-note below: clicking on every ads leak your browsing history because in the URL there is a unique tracking ID that connects to the page you are viewing) | | |
| ▲ | freitasm 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | "-> Publisher is not harmed" How? Publishers do need revenue and this can deprive them of this income. | | |
| ▲ | rvnx 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fair enough. I took the principle that revenue = 0 if no conversion, but in reality this is not true at all. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | direwolf20 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You're not clicking the button, you're sending a known fraudulent request saying the ad was clicked, when the ad was not clicked |
| |
| ▲ | sharperguy 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I still wonder about that. I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't. The website operator does have such a contract and so cannot hire a bot farm to spam click the ads. If it's something that's been held up in court already then of course I have to accept it, but I can't say the reason seems immediately intuitive. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a very general law that says something about using a computer to cause money to move | |
| ▲ | gruez 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't. Charges of fraud doesn't require a contract to be in place. That's the whole point of criminal law, it's so that you don't need to add a "don't screw me over" clause to every interaction you make. | | |
| |
| ▲ | dsr_ 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | An AI agent did it. Obviously I can't be expected to watch over all the things it does. |
|
