AMD making money from ad revenue from installing drivers!?!?

[zMeul]

54 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea lets not pretend a shortcut is anything more than it is please. If you have a credible complaint then bring it to the table otherwise the minor issue has been resolved already.

oh, so it's ok they pushed adware on people's PCs without any notice

 

ok then, glad we settled that

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

oh, so it's ok they pushed adware on people's PCs without any notice

 

ok then, glad we settled that

It's not adware, saying it is doesn't make it so.

[zMeul]

Just now, leadeater said:

It's not adware, saying it is doesn't make it so.

yeah .. sure 

whatever makes you feel safe

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

yeah .. sure 

whatever makes you feel safe

Um same to you... And yes I was totally fine with what they did, people ONLY cared because it was a bit.ly link, if it was a link ported through amd.com doing the exact same function nobody would have kicked up a fuss like this except for the ones with illogical tendencies. 

 

Edit:

Quote

Adware, or advertising-supported software, is any software package that automatically renders advertisements in order to generate revenue for its author.

So only rendered when the link was actually executed and generated no ad revenue, yep....

[mr moose]

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Um same to you... And yes I was totally fine with what they did, people ONLY cared because it was a bit.ly link, if it was a link ported through amd.com doing the exact same function nobody would have kicked up a fuss like this except for the ones with illogical tendencies. 

 

I kicked up a stink (if that's what people want to call it) because a ad/tracked link placed on my desktop without my permission let alone knowledge is unethical to me.  It is unethical to me because I am installing drivers to make a piece of hardware that I purchased in full (not an ad supported product) work as it should under the conditions of sale.

If there was notification this was happening or an option to say no I would have zero issues.  Therefore the fact it is bit.ly is irrelevant.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If there was notification this was happening or an option to say no I would have zero issues.  Therefore the fact it is bit.ly is irrelevant.

True agree with that. A lot of the complaints that were generated had to do with people thinking the link was a blatant ad revenue grab, I mean look at the thread title which is wrong according to AMD's statement about what the link wasn't doing and also removing from the installer.

 

Edit:

Really the only thing I disagree with is the over inflated and sensationalized comparisons or claims about what it was that actually happened. You can object to something in a sensible and measured fashion and still raze awareness of the issue and get it remedied. 

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

True agree with that. A lot of the complaints that were generated had to do with people thinking the link was a blatant ad revenue grab, I mean look at the thread title which is wrong according to AMD's statement about what the link wasn't doing and also removing from the installer.

 

Edit:

Really the only thing I disagree with is the over inflated and sensationalized comparisons or claims about what it was that actually happened. You can object to something in a sensible and measured fashion and still raze awareness of the issue and get it remedied. 

To be fair the two original media articles claimed it was exactly that.   It's understandable that people would think that becasue it wasn't till after the backlash and media reports that AMD made claims about it not being a paid link. 

 

In any case,  no one is going to loose their house over this, Although it would be nice  if people could accept that other people have a different opinion on the subject.

[laminutederire]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

To be fair the two original media articles claimed it was exactly that.   It's understandable that people would think that becasue it wasn't till after the backlash and media reports that AMD made claims about it not being a paid link. 

 

In any case,  no one is going to loose their house over this, Although it would be nice  if people could accept that other people have a different opinion on the subject.

We ought to fight the nvidia fan boys though! How else can we claim the prize of honor that being and AMD knight now that we were wrongfully ripped of our desktop shortcuts?

On a more serious note, read zMeul, and understand how he is dangerous if not challenged. If he isn't false information goes on and about Internet and prevents an healthy competition. Do remember that people still are buying nvidia for the image it has, and nothing more in a significant proportion  still. You can argue that they have superior products on the high end so that's normal,  but even when they don't they still profit from their image, which isn't healthy competition, since it's competition on the image and not on the product. Little details like this need to be challenged once, then he goes into non sensical rants and everyone reading the conversation afterwards understand he was wrong, without having to keep the thread going to convince him (because we won't obviously).

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

We ought to fight the nvidia fan boys though! How else can we claim the prize of honor that being and AMD knight now that we were wrongfully ripped of our desktop shortcuts?

On a more serious note, read zMeul, and understand how he is dangerous if not challenged. If he isn't false information goes on and about Internet and prevents an healthy competition. Do remember that people still are buying nvidia for the image it has, and nothing more in a significant proportion  still. You can argue that they have superior products on the high end so that's normal,  but even when they don't they still profit from their image, which isn't healthy competition, since it's competition on the image and not on the product. Little details like this need to be challenged once, then he goes into non sensical rants and everyone reading the conversation afterwards understand he was wrong, without having to keep the thread going to convince him (because we won't obviously).

 

Give it a rest.   We all know zmeul hates AMD.  But somethings are still facts and some people buy AMD for the exact same reasons you claim they buy Nvidia.  Anyone who doesn't research their purchase and buys a fucking logo deserves to be ripped off, Regardless of whether they buy nvidia or AMD or intel or a fucking potato.

 

As I said before, we all need to let people have their opinions, especially if you want yours to be heard.

 

 

[Tomsen]

25 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Give it a rest.   We all know zmeul hates AMD.  But somethings are still facts and some people buy AMD for the exact same reasons you claim they buy Nvidia.  Anyone who doesn't research their purchase and buys a fucking logo deserves to be ripped off, Regardless of whether they buy nvidia or AMD or intel or a fucking potato.

 

As I said before, we all need to let people have their opinions, especially if you want yours to be heard.

Yeah everyone have a right to their opinion. Just not when it isn't opinion based.

Calling everything an "opinion" (and therefore allow people to spew absolute BS, like AMD installing malware) is damaging to the discussion.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Yeah everyone have a right to their opinion. Just not when it isn't opinion based.

Calling everything an "opinion" (and therefore allow people to spew absolute BS, like AMD installing malware) is damaging to the discussion.

 

I didn't say you couldn't call out BS. If someone can't discern the difference between an personal opinion and a fact then they should stop posting in the thread.  Those who think any opinion they don't agree with is somehow wrong though should stop posting in the forum.  It's just getting tiring seeing the same BS all the time.

[Tomsen]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I didn't say you couldn't call out BS. If someone can't discern the difference between an personal opinion and a fact then they should stop posting in the thread.  Those who think any opinion they don't agree with is somehow wrong though should stop posting in the forum.  It's just getting tiring seeing the same BS all the time.

Yet, we have the same user who keeps making "opinion based facts" in nearly every topic regarding AMD (without consequences). The statement aren't laid out as opinions, they are laid out as ultimatums. Making the statement that AMD drivers install adware or malware is BS, not an opinion in any fashion.

He has every right to say he didn't like AMD putting a link on the desktop, that is after all his opinion. He can think it is shady or unethical. I don't have a problem with that.

 

Yeah, it is indeed getting tiring seeing the same fucking BS from the same user in every damn AMD thread. The guy is intentionally doing it, saying otherwise is just pure ignorance at this point. One cannot be that stupid. But hey, he spams a bunch of news, so mods probably let him do it.

 

I should make a bot that just repost news from other tech sites. Avoid all this personal BS agendas from certain LTT members.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Tomsen said:

Making the statement that AMD drivers install adware or malware is BS, not an opinion in any fashion.

I would classify this as adware. It silently and without consent from the user placed advertisement on the computer and tracked how many clicked on the link.

 

Please bear in mind that there is no strict definition of what is and isn't "adware". In fact, some might classify it as spyware too.

Here is an extract from when the TFC tried to classify adware and spyware:

Quote

In FTC staff’s view, adware aptly illustrates the challenges associated with developing a workable definition of spyware. Adware is often bundled with other software programs, which are frequently provided to consumers for free. Some types of adware monitor computer use (including websites visited), analyze that information to determine ads in which the users might be interested, and then display targeted ads to users based on this analysis. On the other hand, other types of adware do not monitor computer use and instead just serve advertising messages to users.

 

Workshop panelists and commenters stated a range of views as to whether and when adware should be classified as spyware. Some panelists argued that adware is spyware if users have not received clear notice about what the software will do or have not provided adequate consent to its installation or operation. In turn, some types of adware would not meet some definitions of spyware because they do not monitor computer use. Other workshop participants apparently would view adware as spyware if it causes consumers to receive pop-up ads, regardless of whether consumers are bombarded with such ads or just occasionally receive such ads.

Was this bundled with other software? Yes

Did it monitor website visits? Yes

Did it serve an ad to the user? Yes

Did users receive a clear notice about it? No

Did it provide adequate consent? No

 

 

Malware is a stretch, but adware or spyware is very much an opinion thing since there are no strict definition you can follow and say "this is/isn't adware because X, Y and Z reasons".

[captain cactus]

Sigh...

 

Can we stop beating a dead horse already? Lock this thread, it's old and irrelevant.

[Tomsen]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I would classify this as adware. It silently and without consent from the user placed advertisement on the computer and tracked how many clicked on the link.

 

Please bear in mind that there is no strict definition of what is and isn't "adware". In fact, some might classify it as spyware too.

Here is an extract from when the TFC tried to classify adware and spyware:

Was this bundled with other software? Yes

Did it monitor website visits? Yes

Did it serve an ad to the user? Yes

Did users receive a clear notice about it? No

Did it provide adequate consent? No

 

 

Malware is a stretch, but adware or spyware is very much an opinion thing since there are no strict definition you can follow and say "this is/isn't adware because X, Y and Z reasons".

You would classify a URL as adware? That is absolute nonsense. Ask any software engineer, adware is a piece of software (adware is short for advertising-supported software)  bundled with a program to display ads when said programs runs. There is also malicious adware with the intend to inject ads into other programs.

 

Was there any software bundled to their program to display said ad? No.

Did the program monitor website visits? No.

Did it serve an ad to the user? No, you had to click it yourself.

Did users receive a clear notice about it? No. (well, it wasn't hidden away in installation folders)

Did it provide adequate consent? It doesn't need to. You are providing implicit consent by downloading it.

Did it generate revenue for the author? No.

 

So, since the FTC can't give a "strict definition", you simply start stretching the definition so it fits it?

 

By your own definition, any programs which doing its installation puts a URL in their installation folder/whereever (perhaps to a help page or whatever), is classified as adware. Do you stand by your own definition?

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

You would classify a URL as adware?

This was just not an URL. This was a shortcut which lead to a website with a tracking URL, and said shortcut was put there silently without the users consent. And yes, I would call that adware.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

That is absolute nonsense. Ask any software engineer, adware is a piece of software (adware is short for advertising-supported software)  bundled with a program to display ads when said programs runs. There is also malicious adware with the intend to inject ads into other programs.

It is not nonsense.

What if you could not delete the shortcut because it came back? What if it was not 1 shortcut but 100? Would you still say that it was not adware because "it's just 100 shortcuts to different sign-up pages and you can't delete them, it's not adware"? According to your definition, it would not be adware.

If it changed your wallpaper to "BUY CALL OF DUTY NOW!" would you not say it was adware? Not according to your definition.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Was there any software bundled to their program to display said ad? No.

Ehm, what? It did not need to be bundled with a program to display the ad because the OS it was installed on had the programs necessary. If I hacked into Google's servers and modified the Google Chrome installer to place a script that generated 100 popups for Viagra as soon as you started your computer, would you not say that was adware?

Besides, the icon and shortcut itself is an ad.

Do you not think that they added the shortcut to bring attention to Quake? If that was their intention, then it's an ad. If that was not their intention then why did they put it in the driver to begin with?

 

 

21 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Did the program monitor website visits? No.

The program did not, but the URL did track clicks.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Did it serve an ad to the user? No, you had to click it yourself.

The shortcut itself was an ad. You wouldn't say "YouTube has no ads because I do not click on any of them" right? Showing a user something such as a logo, name or whatever, in order to bring attention to said product, is an ad.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Did users receive a clear notice about it? No. (well, it wasn't hidden away in installation folders)

Yeah, it was not hidden because they wanted people to see the ad. The intention of bringing attention to it is an important aspect that makes it an ad in my mind.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Did it provide adequate consent? It doesn't need to. You are providing implicit consent by downloading it.

So if I started spreading a Trojan horse then the victims would have "provided implicit consent"? Come on... You can't say that with a straight face, right? You got to be pulling my leg here.

I could understand your POV a bit with the previous comments, but I don't think you are thinking straight with this particular point. No rational person would say that a program is allowed to do whatever it wants because "you provided implicit consent by downloading it".

Are we going to use that reasoning for other things too? "You gave implicit consent to having sex because you drank the drink I put roofie in".

 

Users were not aware that what they downloaded would do what it did (because as far as I know, it was not mentioned anywhere) so therefore they could not have given consent. You can't give consent to something you are unaware of.

(And no I am not saying what AMD did was as bad as raping someone. Analogies are not equivalation)

 

 

35 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

By your own definition, any programs which doing its installation puts a URL in their installation folder/whereever (perhaps to a help page or whatever), is classified as adware. Do you stand by your own definition?

Not really. I think it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Putting a link to a help page in the install folder is quite different from this.

1) The help page is there to help people, not to bring attention to a product. The intentions are completely different, and that matters a lot.

2) First vs third party website. AMD linking to AMD's website is more acceptable (to me) than AMD linking to a third party website. It's a trust thing. Linking to a third party website means that you are linking your users to a website you do not control.

3) Putting it out of sight from the user vs putting it right in front of their face. Do you not agree that a program changing your background to a picture of a massive cock would be more serious than it putting the same picture inside a hidden folder buried deep in your folder structure? Then again, you could also make the argument that being transparent about what and where you put on the users computer is good.

 

 

I don't think this subject is as black and white as you do.

By the way, I have sprinkled this post with examples of things your definition would not classify as "adware". Do you stand by your definition?

[Jito463]

42 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The shortcut itself was an ad. You wouldn't say "YouTube has no ads because I do not click on any of them" right? Showing a user something such as a logo, name or whatever, in order to bring attention to said product, is an ad.

Ad, yes.  Adware, no.

[Tomsen]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

This was just not an URL. This was a shortcut which lead to a website with a tracking URL, and said shortcut was put there silently without the users consent. And yes, I would call that adware.

How do you navigate to a website? By a URL. It was a desktop shortcut URL. You don't magically end up to a website..

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

It is not nonsense.

What if you could not delete the shortcut because it came back? What if it was not 1 shortcut but 100? Would you still say that it was not adware because "it's just 100 shortcuts to different sign-up pages and you can't delete them, it's not adware"? According to your definition, it would not be adware.

If it changed your wallpaper to "BUY CALL OF DUTY NOW!" would you not say it was adware? Not according to your definition.

"What if" "What if" "what if". That is a whole bunch of what if to establish your point. Entirely changing the intention from innocent to extremely invasive. Entirely change the scenario, and yet you ask if I keep to my definitions. I do, as long as the scenario resembles it.

That would after all require some additional software to make sure you can't delete them (or just replaces them).

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Ehm, what? It did not need to be bundled with a program to display the ad because the OS it was installed on had the programs necessary. If I hacked into Google's servers and modified the Google Chrome installer to place a script that generated 100 popups for Viagra as soon as you started your computer, would you not say that was adware?

Besides, the icon and shortcut itself is an ad.

Do you not think that they added the shortcut to bring attention to Quake? If that was their intention, then it's an ad. If that was not their intention then why did they put it in the driver to begin with?

So is the ad the shortcut or the website? Before it was the website, now it is the shortcut?

Again, you are making an extreme example that doesn't represent our topic at hand, and ask if I still keep my definitions. I do.

 

Is it an ad? Sure. Does that mean that all ads is adware? No.

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

The program did not, but the URL did track clicks.

I thought the shortcut was the ad now? Can you decide?

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

The shortcut itself was an ad. You wouldn't say "YouTube has no ads because I do not click on any of them" right? Showing a user something such as a logo, name or whatever, in order to bring attention to said product, is an ad.

Yeah, but there is a difference between an ad and actual adware. Can you comprehend that?

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Yeah, it was not hidden because they wanted people to see the ad. The intention of bringing attention to it is an important aspect that makes it an ad in my mind.

Nobody is claiming it isn't an ad. (I am not at least).

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

So if I started spreading a Trojan horse then the victims would have "provided implicit consent"? Come on... You can't say that with a straight face, right? You got to be pulling my leg here.

Again, your examples doesn't represent our discussion at hand. You can't draw lines between them like you are attempting to do in order to validate your argument.

Implicit consent as in you accept the TOS (which I would bet would allow desktop shortcut (doesn't have to be explicit about folder location)).

 

No, you are pulling my leg. Your last 3 or so examples has been pure insanity.

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I could understand your POV a bit with the previous comments, but I don't think you are thinking straight with this particular point. No rational person would say that a program is allowed to do whatever it wants because "you provided implicit consent by downloading it".

Are we going to use that reasoning for other things too? "You gave implicit consent to having sex because you drank the drink I put roofie in".

Never said it could do whatever it wants.

 

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Users were not aware that what they downloaded would do what it did (because as far as I know, it was not mentioned anywhere) so therefore they could not have given consent. You can't give consent to something you are unaware of.

(And no I am not saying what AMD did was as bad as raping someone. Analogies are not equivalation)

Well, users in general aren't guaranteed to be aware what they downloaded will do as they want (that is simple the nature of downloading from a external source). Do users know all that happens in the installation folder? In the registry database? etc, etc, etc. No of course not.

 

You can certainly give consent to something you aren't 100% aware of. Don't fool yourself.

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Not really. I think it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Putting a link to a help page in the install folder is quite different from this.

1) The help page is there to help people, not to bring attention to a product. The intentions are completely different, and that matters a lot.

2) First vs third party website. AMD linking to AMD's website is more acceptable (to me) than AMD linking to a third party website. It's a trust thing. Linking to a third party website means that you are linking your users to a website you do not control.

3) Putting it out of sight from the user vs putting it right in front of their face. Do you not agree that a program changing your background to a picture of a massive cock would be more serious than it putting the same picture inside a hidden folder buried deep in your folder structure? Then again, you could also make the argument that being transparent about what and where you put on the users computer is good.

Help page was an innocent example. Could be shortcuts to ads displayed by the adware (would be a huge security flaw tho).

The help page can have ads. Even third party ads!

3) Yeah of course. But that is not the scenario we are having. Making your point utterly irrelevant.

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think this subject is as black and white as you do.

By the way, I have sprinkled this post with examples of things your definition would not classify as "adware". Do you stand by your definition?

Yes, lets list your "examples"...

 

----

 

What if you could not delete the shortcut because it came back? What if it was not 1 shortcut but 100?

 

If I hacked into Google's servers and modified the Google Chrome installer to place a script that generated 100 popups for Viagra as soon as you started your computer, would you not say that was adware?

 

So if I started spreading a Trojan horse then the victims would have "provided implicit consent"?

 

"You gave implicit consent to having sex because you drank the drink I put roofie in".

 

Do you not agree that a program changing your background to a picture of a massive cock would be more serious than it putting the same picture inside a hidden folder buried deep in your folder structure?

 

----

 

Do I stand by my definitions? Yes, indeed I do. You have yet to make an actual argument relevant to the discussion. Your bring utterly extreme, perverted and irrelevant examples to challenge my definition. Are you going to keep doing that? Spare me if thats the case.

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Ad, yes.  Adware, no.

Is a shortcut not a piece of software?

It's not an executable, but not all software are executables.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Tomsen said:

How do you navigate to a website? By a URL. It was a desktop shortcut URL. You don't magically end up to a website..

So according to you, it is not an ad unless a user clicks on it? I am genuinely asking, because this is the first time I have ever seen someone use that logic to separate between what is and isn't an ad.

 

3 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

"What if" "What if" "what if". That is a whole bunch of what if to establish your point. Entirely changing the intention from innocent to extremely invasive. Entirely change the scenario, and yet you ask if I keep to my definitions. I do, as long as the scenario resembles it.

That would after all require some additional software to make sure you can't delete them (or just replaces them).

It's called analogies. It's good that you got my point though, that the intention is a very important part of if something is or isn't an ad/adware. Since there is no strict guidelines of what is and isn't adware, you need to look at the bigger picture, correct? If you want to claim that your previous definition of adware is the only correct one, then all those "what if"s I mentioned need to be compared to the exact same criteria.

 

And no, it would not require additional software. It would just need a simple script. By the way, before you think "aha! the script is the malware, but AMD did not put in a script!", a shortcut is a script.

 

8 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

So is the ad the shortcut or the website? Before it was the website, now it is the shortcut?

Again, you are making an extreme example that doesn't represent our topic at hand, and ask if I still keep my definitions. I do.

 

Is it an ad? Sure. Does that mean that all ads is adware? No.

The shortcut is the ad. I have no idea were you read me saying the website was the ad, but the shortcut was not.

The shortcut was an ad for the website.

 

Yes I am making extreme examples, but I am doing so to make a point. If you say that you have a definition of adware then it has to hold up to all scenarios. You can not keep making excuses for why my examples are exceptions to your own rules, but not allow anyone to say AMD's ad is an exception to the rules as well.

 

11 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Yeah, but there is a difference between an ad and actual adware. Can you comprehend that?

Of course I know that. Since this was a shortcut I think you can make the case that it is adware, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the driver itself contained adware since the driver installer was what triggered the ad to show up.

Would you agree with me more if I said that the driver contained adware, instead of saying that the shortcut itself was adware?

I think that fits your criteria for adware more.

 

15 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Again, your examples doesn't represent our discussion at hand. You can't draw lines between them like you are attempting to do in order to validate your argument.

Implicit consent as in you accept the TOS (which I would bet would allow desktop shortcut (doesn't have to be explicit about folder location)).

I disagree. I do not think it is implicit consent just because it is in the TOS. AMD could put "we are allowed to break into your house at night and steal things from you" in there too but surely that would not hold up in court. Again, it is an extreme example (to make a point) but if you think that implicit consent from accepting the TOS is a valid argument then why would it not be a valid argument in that scenario? Because people do not know what they are signing and therefore have not given proper consent perhaps?

 

23 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Well, users in general aren't guaranteed to be aware what they downloaded will do as they want (that is simple the nature of downloading from a external source). Do users know all that happens in the installation folder? In the registry database? etc, etc, etc. No of course not.

 

You can certainly give consent to something you aren't 100% aware of. Don't fool yourself.

The difference is the intention. Making a registry change in order to improve the experience for the user is fine. Making a registry change to make the experience for the user worse is not.

You can give implicit consent to have your life saved. You can not give implicit consent to have your life taken.

"Implicit consent" is acceptable in order to do neutral or beneficial things. I do not think it is acceptable (or reasonable) for harmful things (which I think putting ads on a user's computer is).

 

26 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Help page was an innocent example. Could be shortcuts to ads displayed by the adware (would be a huge security flaw tho).

The help page can have ads. Even third party ads!

Even if the help page contained ads, that would still not be its main purpose, nor would the help page in your example be up in the user's face about it.

Link to help page hidden in the install directory = Fine.

Link to third party help page put on the desktop for the sole purpose of trying to drive users to that service, not to actually help users = not fine.

 

28 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

3) Yeah of course. But that is not the scenario we are having. Making your point utterly irrelevant.

You can't just go "this is not 100% exactly the same as the scenario we are having, so therefore it is invalid!".

It's analogies. They are not meant to be exact replicas of the scenario we are having. They are meant to make you realize "yeah, my way of thinking might be flawed".

My examples are poking holes at your reasoning, not the situation. The things you are saying about putting an icon on the desktop could also be said about changing the background image. If one is acceptable why isn't the other one?

 

40 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Do I stand by my definitions? Yes, indeed I do. You have yet to make an actual argument relevant to the discussion. Your bring utterly extreme, perverted and irrelevant examples to challenge my definition. Are you going to keep doing that? Spare me if thats the case.

Yes, that is my intention.

[MoonSpot]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

And I'll beat that darn horse till it regains life lol.

Seems you succeeded, happy now?  Damned Necromancer.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Tomsen said:

Yet, we have the same user who keeps making "opinion based facts" in nearly every topic regarding AMD (without consequences). The statement aren't laid out as opinions, they are laid out as ultimatums. Making the statement that AMD drivers install adware or malware is BS, not an opinion in any fashion.

He has every right to say he didn't like AMD putting a link on the desktop, that is after all his opinion. He can think it is shady or unethical. I don't have a problem with that.

 

Yeah, it is indeed getting tiring seeing the same fucking BS from the same user in every damn AMD thread. The guy is intentionally doing it, saying otherwise is just pure ignorance at this point. One cannot be that stupid. But hey, he spams a bunch of news, so mods probably let him do it.

 

I should make a bot that just repost news from other tech sites. Avoid all this personal BS agendas from certain LTT members.

 

Already done that one. 

[Tomsen]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Is a shortcut not a piece of software?

It's not an executable, but not all software are executables.

Right, anything on a computer is a piece of software, albeit anything on a computer is adware. Thanks for clearing it up.

If you are going to be so pedantic about it, lets specify it to application software. Are you saying that shortcuts are adware? Is that the point you are trying to get through?

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So according to you, it is not an ad unless a user clicks on it? I am genuinely asking, because this is the first time I have ever seen someone use that logic to separate between what is and isn't an ad.

How did you arrive to that conclusion from my comment? I never wrote such a thing.

I have multiple times now said that, yes, it is indeed an ad.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's called analogies. It's good that you got my point though, that the intention is a very important part of if something is or isn't an ad/adware. Since there is no strict guidelines of what is and isn't adware, you need to look at the bigger picture, correct? If you want to claim that your previous definition of adware is the only correct one, then all those "what if"s I mentioned need to be compared to the exact same criteria.

 

And no, it would not require additional software. It would just need a simple script. By the way, before you think "aha! the script is the malware, but AMD did not put in a script!", a shortcut is a script.

Yeah, but it isn't very good analogies. Thats the issue. They are nothing like our topic and would rather be categorized as malware.

It is like saying: "Do you support gender equality?" - "yes" - "What if women turned out to be a creature spawned by the red devil himself conspiring to kill all men?" It literally makes zero sense to the discussion. (See I can also make extreme stupid what ifs examples).

 

And no, it would not require additional software. It would just need a simple script.

 

A wise man once told me: Is a shortcut not a piece of software?

Therefore a script must also be a piece of software.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The shortcut is the ad. I have no idea were you read me saying the website was the ad, but the shortcut was not.

The shortcut was an ad for the website.

I remember you saying: Did it monitor website visits? Yes

Can a shortcut monitor website visits?

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes I am making extreme examples, but I am doing so to make a point. If you say that you have a definition of adware then it has to hold up to all scenarios. You can not keep making excuses for why my examples are exceptions to your own rules, but not allow anyone to say AMD's ad is an exception to the rules as well.

My definition of adware still holds. You are talking about malware, not adware. I already pointed out you can have malicious adware (malware).

I don't make any excuses, I simply dismiss your stupid arguments.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Of course I know that. Since this was a shortcut I think you can make the case that it is adware, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the driver itself contained adware since the driver installer was what triggered the ad to show up.

Would you agree with me more if I said that the driver contained adware, instead of saying that the shortcut itself was adware?

I think that fits your criteria for adware more.

You think you can make the case that since it was a shortcut it is adware? So what is your case?

If the driver kept putting shortcuts on the desktop to ads, then yes, I would agree you could make the case that the driver contains adware. That is not what the driver did. It simply placed it there doing the initial install, and forgot about it. It didn't run it or anything, didn't put it back if you removed it, didn't do shit.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I disagree. I do not think it is implicit consent just because it is in the TOS. AMD could put "we are allowed to break into your house at night and steal things from you" in there too but surely that would not hold up in court. Again, it is an extreme example (to make a point) but if you think that implicit consent from accepting the TOS is a valid argument then why would it not be a valid argument in that scenario? Because people do not know what they are signing and therefore have not given proper consent perhaps?

First of all, of course the part of TOS gets invalidated if it contains illegal things like "break into your house at night and steal things". That is once again not the case.

There is NOTHING illegal about putting a desktop shortcut without your explicit consent. (where would you put the line, what folders would it need explicit consent?)

 

It really seems like you have a mis-screwed idea about how the legal system and TOS works and complement each other.

People can read the damn TOS if they want. It is all legal speak, and hard to read (made so on purpose).

 

A judge would throw you out of court if you dared to try challenge AMD on this specific issue. AMD has all the legal rights behind them.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The difference is the intention. Making a registry change in order to improve the experience for the user is fine. Making a registry change to make the experience for the user worse is not.

You can give implicit consent to have your life saved. You can not give implicit consent to have your life taken.

"Implicit consent" is acceptable in order to do neutral or beneficial things. I do not think it is acceptable (or reasonable) for harmful things (which I think putting ads on a user's computer is).

You don't know their intentions do you? Do you know every single intention behind every action their driver installer takes? No, of course not.

You don't have to give consent (implicit nor explicit) to have your life saved anywhere in the western world. The doctors will try to save your life without your consent.

 

"Implicit consent" is acceptable in order to do neutral or beneficial things

 

Either that is your opinion or that is made up statement.

 

which I think putting ads on a user's computer is

 

Any ad you see using your computer is being put on your computer. All ads you see while surfing the internet is being stored locally for that session.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Even if the help page contained ads, that would still not be its main purpose, nor would the help page in your example be up in the user's face about it.

Link to help page hidden in the install directory = Fine.

Link to third party help page put on the desktop for the sole purpose of trying to drive users to that service, not to actually help users = not fine.

Well, the help page was also a very innocent example. Why did you ignore the statement right next to it? (a folder full of ads hidden away in installation folder).

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You can't just go "this is not 100% exactly the same as the scenario we are having, so therefore it is invalid!".

It's analogies. They are not meant to be exact replicas of the scenario we are having. They are meant to make you realize "yeah, my way of thinking might be flawed".

My examples are poking holes at your reasoning, not the situation. The things you are saying about putting an icon on the desktop could also be said about changing the background image. If one is acceptable why isn't the other one?

Yeah, but sorry to break this to you: You are terrible at analogies (at least in our conversation in this thread). Non of your analogies was even close to our discussion. Every single of your analogies had extreme malicious functionality (to the point that you would call it malware).

 

Changing desktop background could result in the previous image been deleted (if no other backup is present). That isn't the case here. Also your example was about changing the background image into a dick. Which would be illegal.

 

[Tomsen]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

Already done that one. 

Really? Why aren't we seeing it around then?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Really? Why aren't we seeing it around then?

Because no one is going to stop being who they are just becasue you disagree with them.  We can make arguments based on as much fact as you like, but ultimately people ignore facts.  Especially when it comes to ambiguous practices.   Defining adware for example:  Do I consider a link on the desktop adware? No. Do I consider the program the delivered the link adware? Maybe, it fits the criteria.  Is the link dangerous? No. is it unethical? yes.  Did they listen to their customers and remove it? yes. Is there a problem anymore? No.   Is there anything left to discuss in this thread? Yes, the fact that some people can't let it go.  

 

All these answers are both fact and perspective based opinion.   Going around in circles is what will continue to happen while there are people who can't accept that others either have an issue with something you don't or vice versa.

 

 

[Tomsen]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Because no one is going to stop being who they are just becasue you disagree with them.  We can make arguments based on as much fact as you like, but ultimately people ignore facts.  Especially when it comes to ambiguous practices.   Defining adware for example:  Do I consider a link on the desktop adware? No. Do I consider the program the delivered the link adware? Maybe, it fits the criteria.  Is the link dangerous? No. is it unethical? yes.  Did they listen to their customers and remove it? yes. Is there a problem anymore? No.   Is there anything left to discuss in this thread? Yes, the fact that some people can't let it go.  

 

All these answers are both fact and perspective based opinion.   Going around in circles is what will continue to happen while there are people who can't accept that others either have an issue with something you don't or vice versa.

Well, I know the arguing isn't going away without mod interference, and that really wasn't my "big dream" with a news-reposting bot.

I can't read 2/3 of the news articles here. Everyone just copy paste without removing formating, which cause black font color and black background color.