Comment by glitchc
5 hours ago
Defrauding ad networks doesn't seem like a bad thing, although using my internet connection as a proxy is obviously terrible. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that my connection is being sold as a VPN service by the vendor.
It'll be a marginal effect, but fake clicks impacts the ad buyer, which then impacts their financials and pricing.
The only winner here is the scammers running the fake affiliate sites on which these sticks are "clicking". Or, am I missing some facet of this enterprise?
What this misses is the person buying the TV stick doesn't care about the impact on the ad market. The bigger problem is residential proxying, because their IP will end up getting used for something bad.
most residential proxying these days is used by the purveyors of AI
Another winner is the person who gets to watch cheap digital TV, without putting together a usable antenna and limiting their reception to the broadcast channels that are nearby.
I mean: They just pay the money, plug the thing in, push some buttons, and: TV happens. Right?
You really don't want fraudulent clicks ("invalid traffic", per industry lingo) coming from your home network, because any publishers (apps and websites, per normal-people lingo) who use tools designed to block invalid traffic might start flagging legitimate traffic from your network.
1 reply →
Theres the question of whether or not the fraudulent advertisement clicking is using enough traffic to inconvenience or impose fees upon the user but otherwise I agree with you and am tempted to buy one just to fuck with advertisers.
Backdoors and spying are also a problem in theory except at this point you can't even trust "legitimate" companies on that front so it's a moot point.
1 reply →
Fraud is also bad, even if you aren't fond of those being defrauded.
Fraud that destroys market trust in a market that mostly deals in surveillance and selling intrusive data that was collected mostly unknowingly from the subject seems great to everyone who has any amount of integrity.
So distilling an AI model of one of the big SOTA models is a bad thing now?
why is running a proxy a bad thing? someone profiting off it could be bad maybe, but even that is good if it pays for my subscription.
but compare running tor nodes, and especially exit nodes. that surely would be a good thing, so at least if you think tor is good then running a proxy should be the same and it should be normalized.
doing it in secret without the user knowing is what's bad
https://lwn.net/Articles/1080822/ Do you really want to be a part of the scraper problem?
From the outside, I don't see the problem. The sites I visit, including LWN, never seem slow or have downtime as a result of this increase in traffic. I hear complaints from people hosting small sites, but they never seem to include concrete examples of downtime or measurably bad user experience. Why does it matter if the server load is high if everything stays functioning? Going from 5-20% to 60-80% load hardly seems like a catastrophe to me when the remaining headroom was not going to be used for anything else. Having your data that's public-enough to be scraped/cited/parodied/ridiculed included in a training set also doesn't seem like a problem. Are they struggling to pay bandwidth usage bills? Is there some actually-necessary intervention required to keep things running smooth, as opposed to panicking and taking unnecessary preventative action?
Because your home IP address is going to be associated with criminal activity. So if that’s acceptable “payment” then I guess there’s no issue
Indeed without my permission is implied. Without it, you have no idea what traffic is being routed and could be on the hook for something nasty like CSAM.
Those are different issues. Permission doesn't mean you know what the content is, and lack of permission doesn't mean they're going to load anything weird or bad. Lack of permission implies worse ethics overall, but an operation focused on clicking ads will be loading relatively normal sites.