The announcer (the enterprise on the ad) pays to the advertising platform (for example Google) which gives a small amount to the site displaying the ad.
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
30 points (91.7% liked)
Privacy
31912 readers
463 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
so by clicking I'm making google pay the site?
You make whomever is advertising via Google pay both Google and the website.
hmm. dunno what I wanna do then. on one hand, I don't want google to make money, but I want the site to make money
thanks for response
If you donate $1, you give the site more tgan what it can earn via ads from you in your life
Far from true depending on where OP lives. High profile sites (e.g. mainstream social media or streaming) can make $ 5-15 USD per user per month if that user is in favourable demographic (mainly living in a rich country, US or EU). A blog without registration will make way less than that, obviously people are viewing way less ads there than sites they stay on for hours, but it's still much more than $1 per lifetime.
Google pays as much as 2c per page view for North American viewers in some categories (but realistically more like 0.5c). So $1 is good for a few hundred page views.
Op wants to give some sites something, and others not. As far as I understood it, this is not about facebook*. This is about random websites
Even if I would use facebook, facebook wouldn't ever get money from ads from me because I don't click on random stuff that pops up on a page. If I'd want to give back something to facebook, I'd need to send them money.
I thought it was about having some browser extension that clicks ads on sites without showing the ads to the user. Like a kind of "best of both worlds" for adblocking. So if it's some blog they read often the ad revenue is probably more like $1 per year.
If you were to use Facebook they can make money off your views even without clicks, just not as much.
Agreed :)
*if you click on ads
Yes, I think that's how it works. The company who hired the ad space pays google, google pays the site that had the ad banner.
If you use ecosia instead of Google for search results, you can plant trees instead
You mostly hurt the owner of the website displaying the ad, if their platform depends on it.
Both the ad distributor (Google, Facebook,etc) and the business advertising are generally not affected because ads not shown aren't paid for. Advertisers pay per 1000 impressions (views, clicks, etc), so if an ad doesn't even load, it does not count as an impression and therefore the ad distributor doesn't charge for that impression.
Adnauseum does load the ad, and clicks some of them.
I see, I was unfamiliar with adnauseam. In those cases then, in theory, you're harming all the interested parties.
I'm hurting the website owner?
(Exclusively) that sucks.
Yeah, potentially. Some bloggers live off of the ads their blogs serve visitors. So yeah, in that case it can suck. However, others make most, or all, of their money from affiliate links on their pages, or partnerships with other blogs, or a combination of 2-3 of these. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a blogger nowadays who lives exclusively off of ad clicks/views, since that market has become increasingly less worth it even before ad blockers became more mainstream. One thing to keep in mind is that there are different types of ad campaigns, and if the blogger get paid per view or per click, in theory adnauseam could be triggering an impression and causing the blogger to be paid at the expense of Google/FB/etc. It really depends on how Google and Facebook deal with adnauseam's false clicks. So do with this information what you will.
Edit: Just as a matter of comparison. I knew a guy who, in 2008 built a blog where he had AdSense, and would routinely make £500 (~600 USD) PER WEEK, just from him clicking his own ads and changing his IP. Of course this isn't possible anymore nowadays (the change IP easily part) but also no way in hell Google would still be paying that much for as clicks. Those times are simply gone as Google, Facebook, Yahoo became greedier, not because of Adblockers, so you shouldn't feel bad for using them, imho.
Edited for added content.
distrubuter charges? I thought they paid to be on the site? what?
More or less. Adnauseam could potentially be better for bloggers than UBo, but it really depends on how Google, Facebook, Bing interpret those "fake" clicks. If Facebook/Google can identify these clicks, they could make the choice of charging the advertiser regardless (and pay the blogger), OR exclude that impression (meaning the blogger doesn't get paid), OR, if they identify a particular blog attracts more adnauseam users than usual (perhaps a privacy/security-related blog), they could exclude the blog from their ad programs entirely. Please understand this is all highly speculative because we don't really know how these platforms treat fake clicks, if they are even aware of them at all, and so on.
I expanded further on how online advertising works on another thread in this post, if you'd be like to read it.