HN Explorer

Ask HN: A browser that clicks on every ad as a protest against Google?

21 points by burtonator ↗ HN
Like the subject line... only instead of ad block you click every add and load it in a hidden tab.

The ad is still hidden too... just that we click on more ads than a usual user.

Sure.. you waste a bit of bandwidth but it's asymmetric and you waste a lot more money on their end.

29 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 57.0 ms ] thread
TrueDuality
That's liking playing aggressive russian roulette with your machine. Do you like malware? Because that's how you get malware.
gervu
Malware happens because arbitrary JavaScript and bad browser API decisions. Popping background requests for stuff you don't actually want to run or display doesn't require executing arbitrary JavaScript.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
TrueDuality
Displaying most ads requires you to already be running javascript. When was the last time you viewed the web with javascript disabled?
gremlinsinc
why not sell raspberry pi's that are just clickbots that anyone can buy and plug into their lan as a google protest that just clicks google ads all day long...that way your computer won't get infected just the pi.
sanxiyn
This is a great idea! I will happily crowdfund this.
clintonb
That seems like a waste of energy.
klyrs
Follow related searches randomly, use random fingerprints to simulate sessions. Click more ads. Search for terms on the advertiser's page. Click more ads. Search for random terms mixed with common terms in the session. Click more ads.

Spam the damn spammers and teach the AI with uncorrelated garbage mixed into the correlations it's already learned.

cloud_thrasher
That's assuming the metrics they measure actually means anything. It's been proven many times that all the "science" behind these metrics and the resulting numbers are meaningless.
tehsauce
I have personally suspected this, but was unaware it has been "proven many times". Do you have some references?
55555
Is your goal primarily to waste the budget of advertisers, many of whom are small businesses? Because you would be increasing the revenue and profit of ad networks.
sanxiyn
Yes, because then advertisers will reduce their ad spend.
badcede
Spend less by spending more?
55555
Yes but not to the degree that the ad network will make less money in total. If you understand how advertisers optimize their campaigns and think it through you'll come to this conclusion. Performance-based marketers will reduce bids until they asymptote at the real value of the traffic. But other marketers with bad stats will just keep spending, and performance-based marketers launching new campaigns will need to run run-of-network until they've blacklisted the crappy placements. In the end, the ad network will make more money and advertisers will lose money.

This is just one of a billion issues with a simple implementation of this idea. Another issue is that merely clicking ads without adequately spoofing your fingerprint will just get you ignored by the smarter networks... I could go on and on but don't have time atm

sanxiyn
This all sounds good to me. Punishing ad industry would be the best, but punishing dumb advertisers and punishing dumb ad networks also sound great.
drivingmenuts
Punishing the people who buy ads is a far more effective strategy that gets to the heart of the issue.

Also, just as effective.

nanopticon
I'm not sure I agree with OP, but you could at least skip clicking on the simple text ads that average joes use to try and get customers. Perhaps start with a list of approved ad "blocks" to click on.
askvictor
In the short term, this helps Google; they profit from each click, with the advertiser paying Google. In the long term, sure, _if_ enough people use it (they won't) then advertisers will start demanding Google do something (I strongly doubt advertisers would pull out of Google altogether). Google will then proceed to add a score to each click "probability that this click was by a bot" which would be pretty easy to determine given they're prowess in this area already.
idunno246
It’s generally assumed that a large percentage of clicks are fraud, on the order of a quarter. That’s after filtering out the detected fraud. So this is basically another form of fraud, you’d have to be a pretty large percentage of clicks to matter. And even then, advertisers are ok with the fraud, you just pay less per click assuming some percentage is fake, so in the end total dollars wouldn’t change, clicks go up and cpc goes down
pkaye
How about FireFox getting rid of Google search from their browser?
daliusd
I think that would be end of Firefox. Google pays Mozilla to have their search engine being default in Firefox.
unreal37
> How about Firefox getting rid of their main source of revenue.

FTFY

pkaye
So it is okay to promote Google just because it makes them money? That is what allows Google to stay at the top. Why not ask FireFox users to donate a little money to fund development?
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
cannonedhamster
As much as I pay for services I use, many people don't have the ability or won't see it as important enough to fund. While you and I might see the purpose, I suspect those like us area in the minority.
return1
If you really want to help webmasters get rid of advertising, then start using cryptocurrencies and persuade them to switch to micropayments. It's that simple.