Slashdot Mirror
Adbusters Suggests Click Fraud As Protest
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."
Won't this just make Google more money?
It's not like the advertisers can go somewhere else. If you want search ads, there's only one place to go.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Actually, I think I already have Google ads blocked...
Will false-positives hurt them more than just adblocking them?
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Isn't adblock enough? I hate advertising, but as long as I can opt out it's OK with me.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
We're talking about tagging cookies to a browser, keeping data browser-end, and having the browser send data back to the server for statistics when ads are served.
Instead, we could skip the cookies. Keep the data on the server, in a database, tied to your IP address and other information collected about you (OS, browser, time of day, etc) and do much more extensive research.
When you clear your cookies, you're removed from Google's "Database" ... YOU are requesting THEM to send you ads based on information YOU are tracking using THEIR program. THEY are not tracking everything you do, because damn, it'd be hard to uniquely identify you when your cookies expire and drop your UUID stored in a cookie and they wind up with 40 database entries for your ONE browser because you clear cookies every session.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
i think this is stupid, but it's just my $0.02...
Sorry, that bid is not high enough for any ad placement.
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.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
As noted in the second comment in the posted article, Adbusters is using Google Analytics for user tracking. It doesn't seem like Adbusters is really concerned about this issue whatsoever if they allow Google to violate their own users' privacy, all while encouraging click fraud. What is Adbusters thinking?
I don't understand this "protest." Google, apparently the target of the protest, gets increased ad revenues, whereas small businesses like mine that use Adsense get... Thousands of dollars in additional advertising costs that are designed to generate no revenue...?
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'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.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Yahoo search is REALLY good now, seriously. The links are a lot more often exactly what I am looking for, and unlike the "more" tab on Google, which just tries to push more Google crap like Google Blogs, the "more" tab is actually really useful. For example, let us say I put in Bioshock. Under the more tab it would have Bioshock reviews, patches, cheats, walkthroughs, etc. For the Dark Knight it has Dark Knight movie, trailer, Christopher Nolan, Heath ledger, etc.
So if you want to stick it to Google and their spying BS, why not try Yahoo? Competition is always good, Yahoo Search is really nice now, and it certainly stomps anything MSFT has ever done in the search field(not that it is hard to top them) but it really is a nicer experience IMHO than Google search. So why not give it a go? All you have to lose is a little time.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.