Hacker News Reader

Comment by clinta | Hacker News Reader

This does not make any sense. Advertisers paying per view do not get charged for a view if crome prevents the user from viewing the page.

The good news here is we now have official admission by google that allowing adsense ads without filtering is dangerous. And those of us who do not have sophisticated techniques that can detect deceptive ads have no choice to but to block the entire network serving them, if we want to be secure.

View on HN

>Advertisers paying per view do not get charged for a view if crome prevents the user from viewing the page.

The cost isn't in money, it's in views. By not letting you click a fake DL button, the malicious ad doesn't lead you to the site it wants you to end up on, which is usually plastered with other ads and sometimes has malware lying around on it. The end result is that the malicious party can't make money off their own site's ads and can't redirect you to download god-knows-what onto your system.

Any blockning of "malverts" should arguably just emulate view so it costs the advertiser even more than the lost view. If Google don't want to do that themselves (which would be understandable) they could likely expose it in APIs so plugins like ad blockers can do it.

Why not block it at the source instead? Prevent these types of ads from being submitted to AdSense in the first place.

Google can't do that. It'd be fraud.

I don't think it would be fraud if they did it to ads from non-Google networks. But yeah, they shouldn't fake views on ads that come from their own networks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com