Adbusters Suggests Click Fraud As Protest 390
An anonymous reader writes "In response to Google's recently announced plans to expand the tracking of users, the international anti-advertising magazine Adbusters proposes that we collectively embark on a civil disobedience campaign of intentional, automated 'click fraud' in order to undermine Google's advertising program in order to force Google to adopt a pro-privacy corporate policy. They have released a GreaseMonkey script that automatically clicks on all AdSense ads."
Advertisers (Score:5, Interesting)
If I was an AdWords user, I would pull all of my bids now and let other advertisers exhausted theirs first.
Then a "word" will be easier and cheaper to get.
Re:They need to get paid somehow (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't a protest against advertising, it's a protest against Google's privacy policy. It's purely because Google need to get paid that hijacking their advertising revenue stream might get their attention. It's effectively blackmail for (depending on your opinion) a noble cause.
Re:"Protest"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not civil disobedience (Score:5, Interesting)
I you want to learn a lot about civil disobedience, web search "civil disobedience carl cohen howard zinn" - and I note that for once I didn't say to google it.
I studied under Carl Cohen - and highly recommend reading everything by him and Zinn if you want clear thinking on this topic.
The act of overloading Google with this plan is something that I personally find quite laudable - but it is not civil disobedience. As an ancient hippie, I don't mind saying that this act is simply called, Sticking It To The Man . I'm saddened that today's Man-Stickers are so inundated with political correctness that they can't call an action for what it is.
As Carl might have said - they emasculate their argument by so doing.
FWIW, it's not the summary - the stupidity of calling it civil disobedience comes right from TFA.
Smart thing (Score:4, Interesting)
The smart thing for Google to do would be to completely ignore the program, and let advertisers use their usual click-fraud dispute resolution mechanism. By fighting the program, Google would only be giving the program legitimacy. Without the "I'm being oppressed" notoriety, the program will pick up very few users and the total effect on the market will be small.
I'm not against advertising. I'm against fraudulent, manipulative, and obstructive advertising. Google AdWords typically score relatively low on all three counts, so they're fine with me.
good lord... (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously - how much money does it take to operate google?
What percentage of internet users use google every day?
These 'free' services aren't there 'because someone out there loves us and wants to give us this stuff for free'. They make money off of it.
How? Ads. Don't like it? Don't use google products. Cancel your gmail accounts, wipe your igoogle page, delete your calenders, office docs, etc.
For that matter, never visit another site with ads. Sure, it's your bandwidth, but the ads take up a diminishingly small amount of that. Especially google's ads.
Many sites sell /nothing/, few donate, and bandwidth is expensive. Let alone racks of servers, etc. If some people click on ads, great.
Frankly, I don't mind - I'd love to NEVER see another ad that I could care less about.
Frankly, I think Adbuster's is being childish about this entire thing. If they want to limit themselves to ad free sites, go for it.
Google is specifically making this easy for users. Heck, I'll be able to edit what types of ads I want to see! Mind you, I'm not excited about ads, and have never clicked one, but I'd rather see ads based on what I'm interested in (IT, games primarily) rather than online dating or vacations or get a bigger penis.
This entire 'uproar' is a bunch of pointless FUD.
Re:"Protest"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Automated (or random) clicking will only hurt the sites that you visit, by lowering the value of the entire site's ads.
Wow. (Score:3, Interesting)
This makes my brain hurt, teh implications, teh possibilities legal and otherwise...
i think i have to defer comment and opinion until some experts wander in (are we allowed to do that here? Will my account be locked? ,-) ).
What does strike me is Protest 2.0.
SysAlert: new protest available. Download? [Y/N] > y
........... done.
Run protest? [Y/N] > y
Protest running.
Of course, i'm gonna complain that no one can be arsed to actually do anything any more, aren't i? And i advocate automation and interfacing with other systems - literally, figuratively, politically, socially, mechanically - whenever possible. So is this looking-askance at Protest.sh a little Luddite slipping in in my old age? Or will it just encourage MORE laziness - oh, if i don't have a button to press, i can't be arsed so prepackage my activism please.
Brain hurts again :P
Re:Why not just block their ads? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is not actionable if the clicker does not expect to profit by it.
Cruel to Small Businesses Using Google.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I admit it -- my small jewelry store (beadstore.com) is not a particularly sophisticated Google customer. I think in 2007, we spent maybe $10,000 over the course of a year advertising on Google. (Since then, we've scaled back considerably -- even though it increased business, cash flow concerns made it impossible to continue.)
After we started, I handed off control of the budget to someone who didn't quite understand the limits system properly (they're beaders, after all, not techies). She racked up almost a thousand dollars in costs in a single week. Eek! A potentially devestating mistake, since $1,000 in unexpected expenses is a huge amount for a little company like ours. (We learned our lesson and made sure everyone understood the system pronto.)
Fortunately -- and I'm sure not coincidently -- that week was also one of our biggest grossing weeks ever (though it probably didn't cover the additional advertising costs, at least over the short run). I don't know what we would have done had those costs been driven by non-customers clicking through in some misguided attempt to hurt Google. I'm not looking for sympathy for people who screw up, or suggesting that all Google advertisers are like us, but please remember that a single click can still cost a dollar or more, so a few fraudulent clicks really hurts. Not only does it inflate your advertising costs, but it also denies us of legitimate potential customers (since the system is designed to remove the ads once your target budget is reached). And I suspect we would never know for sure whether we just had a really low click-to-purchase ratio for a given week, or whether we were the victims of an organized fraud (in the non-legal sense, anyway).
Lastly, Google claims that multiple clicks from the same IP address are filtered out -- of course, I have no idea if their system would prevent what these people are suggesting.
I have a better Solution (Score:1, Interesting)
If you object to Googles privacy policy, then do not use any Google services.
This does not mean, use them through an anonymous proxy as that is theft, this means do not use them at all. Use an entirely free search engine that works just as well with a better privacy policy. Google make money through advertising, as do all large scale search engines. That is how they are able offer a service and not charge for it. There might be smaller free services that have a better privacy policy but would they still be free if they could put up with the load google is able to? The amount google must spend on staff and hardware must be obscene.
Re:Is adbusters going to try to sell you a mouse? (Score:2, Interesting)
Crazy idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead of launching a DOS attack on google(that might just make google more money) over the TOS, why not use Microsoft or Yahoo search until they fix it? It's not like Google is the only search provider in the world.
Google ads: unfiltered by my hosts file (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a cautious supporter of Adbusters, but I actually took google's ads out of my hosts file's filter list.
My reasoning is that I believe, after years of studying media and communications, that advertising can only be ethical if it resembles the directory that you find in a phone book, accompanied by an honest, vetted description. Otherwise, it is rhetorically manipulative and preys on the uninformed.
Now, while google's ads aren't perfect, they hew closer to this ideal than most other forms of advertising. The lack of emotionally manipulative visual imagery helps (I make a living messing with such imagery, BTW).
I don't trust Google, the company. I am opposed to their excessive privacy abuse. However, I balance that against their general model, and find the competition worse.
I won't support adbusters in this campaign, but I don't oppose it either.
Re:"Protest"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Adbuster is only against *evil* ads. e.g.
popup, popunder, flash, loud, javascript heavy, annoying animations, privacy invasions, etc.
the Google knows... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hi, We're writing to let you know about the upcoming launch of interest-based advertising, which will require you to review and make any necessary changes to your site's privacy policies. You'll also see some new options on your Account Settings page. Interest-based advertising will allow advertisers to show ads based on a user's previous interactions with them, such as visits to advertiser website and also to reach users based on their interests (e.g. "sports enthusiast"). To develop interest categories, we will recognize the types of web pages users visit throughout the Google content network. As an example, if they visit a number of sports pages, we will add them to the "sports enthusiast" interest category. To learn more about your associated account settings, please visit the AdSense Help Center at http://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/topic.py?topic=20310 [google.com]. As a result of this announcement, your privacy policy will now need to reflect the use of interest-based advertising. Please review the information at https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=100557 [google.com] to ensure that your site's privacy policies are up-to-date, and make any necessary changes by April 8, 2009. Because publisher sites and laws vary across countries, we're unfortunately unable to suggest specific privacy policy language. For more information about interest-based advertising, you can also visit the Inside AdSense Blog at http://adsense.blogspot.com/2009/03/driving-monetization-with-ads-that.html [blogspot.com]. We appreciate your participation and look forward to this upcoming enhancement. Sincerely, The Google AdSense Team Email preferences: You have received this mandatory email service announcement to update you about important changes to your AdSense product or account. Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043
FEAR THE GOOGLE!
This could backfire (Score:4, Interesting)
Much as I like Adbusters, this is a headache.
Right now, Google ad URLs are relatively straightforward to recognize and decode. If Google sees this as a real threat, they may start obfuscating them and using elaborate gimmickry with Javascript, like the stuff one sees in hostile web pages. Then they'll be much tougher to deal with. The easy approaches to ad blocking will stop working.
We recognize Google ad URLs in AdRater [sitetruth.com], which is a Firefox plug-in, and we put a translucent rating icon atop each ad. Google ad links are currently rather straightforward to decode, so we don't have to follow them, just examine them. For some of Google's competitors, you can't tell where the ad link is going without clicking on it. We've considered a plug-in which follows encoded ad links in the browser, but it would look like click fraud, even though it has a legitimate purpose. So far, we've refrained from doing that. If Google tries obfuscating their ad URLs, we'll have to actually traverse them to find the advertiser site for rating purposes. That increases everyone's overhead.
Re:How about Tor? (Score:3, Interesting)
So block the clicks coming from the ~2% of users who use Tor. Since Tor usage and cluefulness tend to go hand-in-hand, you'd only be dropping .002% of clicks anyway.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Protest"? (Score:5, Interesting)
But really the whole mission statement of Adbusters is stupid. Removing all ads from the internet will destroy pretty much every service on the internet. Think youtube would be profitable without ads? How about any site you visit with alot of images. Bandwidth isn't free so sites make money from either ads, donations or memberships. Most sites with memberships remove the ads for you so this goal is STUPID. Just use Adblock if you hate them so much
WARNING OFFTOPIC: A side note about Google, more specifically youtube pissing me off. I bought a bass guitar and went to find a youtube-mentor. Found an amazing player giving lessons, he had around 100 videos up totaling millions of views. The guys name is MarloweDK http://www.playbassnow.com/ [playbassnow.com] . A few days ago he was inexplicably banned from youtube unable to even create another account. Some of his clips showed him playing along to music and teaching you various songs. But this goes against even youtubes stated policies. If music playing on speakers in the background being played over by a bass (much louder for students to learn) is even against the rules. Then only the audio feed should be cut according to youtube. But his whole account was banned. If any more resourceful
stop surveillance: destroy Adbusters (Score:2, Interesting)
Adbusters is a truly pathological publication. You buy a copy for $8.99 at a bookstore and get two extremely terse paragraphs on the October Revolution and interviews with well-coiffed third-stream intellectuals. This isn't to say there isn't a payoff: also included are 6 pages of pretty pictures to accompany the article, many of which have nothing to do with the October revolution, but manage to go a long way toward proving Adbusters supports revolution. And you will too, once you buy the magazine, buy the plastic-bottle shoes, and buy into the illusion that Adbusters actually cares. Insurrection this, insurrection that. If, on the off-chance, that insurrection is on the scale they image, a new October 1917 like their publication so cavalierly glosses, Adbusters would likely be one of the first called into question as counterrevolutionary due to their self-conscious posturing and content that is little more than sanctimonious drivel.
NOW - if Adbusters really cared about government surveillance, they probably should have kept their pens silent and not hopped on the persecution of this boogeyman of the month. For let us not forget the amount of insane surveillance goes into producing an issue of Adbusters. The mag's writers, for purposes of research and science, habitually sneak into parties (usually it's parties, but if you're lucky it's a cultural event of some kind), unannounced, sensing the "mental environment," and writing drivel about it a magazine whose title and content could be summed "How to be cool for the next two months until the next issue comes out."
I doubt there are many out there who aren't very passionate about keeping personal information private, but Adbusters is really calling the kettle black on this one. Wrong forum.
Ad Blocking = Digital Earplugs..... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard many people claim a "moral wrong" in blocking ads. How they get to this, I really don't know.....
Advertising, unless you explicitly ask for it, is unwanted. Advertisers are solicitors: They are asking for money in return for a service or product. Charities, although not offering a product or service, are still asking for money and are also solicitors.
Consider this: You are sitting on a park bench reading SlashDot. Later, someone else comes over and sits next to you, and starts talking to you. You aren't interested in any products or services he's offering, and ask him to stop. He refuses. You again ask him to stop. He continues to refuse. You put on a pair of earplugs, the kind they use at shooting ranges, to block out the drivel you don't want to listen to. Is this wrong? Absolutely not. It may be a public place, but ignoring the stranger is legal, while harassing someone for a sale or panhandling, is not. However, one nations' laws cannot be enforced in another nation.
AdBlocking is the Internet equivalent of earplugs. It is also the equivalent of saying "Leave me alone! I don't want to listen to you and I'm not going to buy anything from you!". You you shouldn't have to listen to an ENDLESS FLOOD of sales pitches, product offers, "Special 1-Day Deals", porn ads, and "You are the 1 Millionth Visitor!" that you don't want to.
I have heard a seemingly endless number of arguments that claim AdBlocking is stealing. Stealing? Not at all. Stealing is when you take something from someone else and keep it as your own. By AdBlocking, you aren't taking anything from the site operator and keeping for yourself. You may be costing them clickstream revenue, but your are not stealing since you aren't getting anything in from it.
Someone should cook up a script that sends the site operator a message that says "I don't want your stinking ads!" whenever it detects, and blocks, ads.
Adbusters don't suggest switching from google... (Score:3, Interesting)
What strikes me is what is obviously missing in Adbuster's paper. They say Google is bad, but don't even mention the possibility to switch to another search engine. There is none, no list could be provided.
They must not hate Google in the end.
OK, the impact of n Adbusters users leaving Google may be harder to track than staying and clicking everywhere. Yes. For those who 1) use Firefox + 2) have broadband access + 3) install the extension. /. users will do this. And, 0.003% of the rest of the world.
I'd say, 50% of
My advice: use Clusty. The only one that sometimes indeed is more efficient, thanks to clustering.
http://clusty.com/ [clusty.com]
Re:Ad Blocking = Digital Earplugs..... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one analogy, but not a particularly good one. How about this: A new restaurant is opening in town. The owner of the restaurant wants to get some feedback from the public on how good his food tastes. He invites everyone in town to come to a free dinner, provided they fill out a little feedback card with their name, address, and answers to simple questions about the quality of the food. The only catch is that if you fill out this card, they'll have your home address so you lose a little privacy. He might even sell your physical address to other businesses that want to send you junk mail.
So, you hear about this, and despite your privacy concerns, hey it's a free meal. You go to his restaurant, eat free food all night, then when he comes around at the end of the meal and asks you to fill out the card, you say "No, I'm not going to do it," and walk out the door.
I personally find Adbusters pretty ridiculous. Most of the services we enjoy on the Internet, such as free Gmail, Youtube, Google Search, etc, are funded by ads. If they weren't, the services would either go away or you'd have to pay. Can you imagine paying 25 cents for doing a keyword search? The massive infrastructure that crawls the web isn't free.
Some people may want to go back to the Internet being only available on University computers and using gopher, but I sure don't.