back to article Scandal ad slingers cough up $100k in 'Facebook clickjack' case

A marketing firm accused of running campaigns via a web of unscrupulous affiliates – who flooded Facebook with spam – has agreed to clean up its network. The business's owners settled a lawsuit brought against them and have denied any wrongdoing. Delaware-based Adscend Media allegedly made $1.2m (£743k) per month1 from messages …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Thumb Down

I wonder if it was them?

A couple of years ago I remember a few friends had 'like'd something, some sort of a laptop that was claimed to be a design masterpiece or next gen or something. So I clicked it, and tried to click some or other facebook button to take me away again, but they'd managed to force an overlay onto the page somehow, and next thing I knew I had spammed all my friends with the useless link too.

Quite underhand, and I guess a good way to harvest people's info, as the thing spread like a virus.

0
0
Silver badge
Boffin

So get NoScript...

...and you'll be warned when someone tries to Clickjack you!

0
0
Flame

"Rogue affiliates" my ass.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard the 'rogue affiliates' defense, I'd be almost as rich as the guys exploiting it. Unless you're selling Ferraris, when you have affiliates, you have rogue affiliates - point blank.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone using any type of affiliate system is scum, point blank. If you wanted your name on whatever it is your affiliates are doing, you'd do it yourself and save the 30%. It's click laundering, and I've seen it used to get clicks from hijacked web browsers all the way to Overture and Doubleclick - all of whom act shocked and say they don't have any control over their affiliates (at least, they did a few years ago; I don't know if the big boys are still rolling out the welcome mat for scumware outfits like they did during the CoolWebSearch days).

The hell you dipshits don't have any control over affiliates - you could *not have them in the first place*. But then you wouldn't be able to cash in on hijacked browsers and clueless rubes while still getting to be normal businesses.

Rogue affiliates are the whole reason for *having* affiliates - let someone even less ethical than you are (or at least someone more insulated from Western law; at least the hijackers and virus writers are honest about their occupations) do the dirty work, then look innocent and wave your arms: "I had no idea that we were making a million bucks a month selling nonexistent things in exchange for ripping off personal information *via nefarious means*! I am so VERY sorry! From now on we'll rip people off ourselves."

Yeah, right. The firing squad is thataway, cockchugger.

Also, this caught my eye:

"...unethical marketing behaviour..."

As my dad would say - is there another kind?

4
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums