America’s DIY Phone Farmers(vice.com)
vice.com
America’s DIY Phone Farmers
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3naek/how-to-make-a-phone-farm
51 comments
3 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20589870
Sorry about that - I thought HN automatically deduped submissions.
It does, but only if the URL is the same.
Original URL: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3naek/how-to-make-a-phon...
Your submitted URL: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/d3naek/how-to-make-a-phon...
Original URL: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3naek/how-to-make-a-phon...
Your submitted URL: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/d3naek/how-to-make-a-phon...
Doesn’t matter, it should and if it doesn’t it’s not your fault. Never blame the user ;)
Just out of curiosity, how would you write software to catch that those two URLs pointed to the same thing?
If you pressed me for an answer: similar to how Stackoverflow suggests possibly related questions.
Start with a distance function from url to url. Easiest would be based on simple URL string distance (would have shown this as very similar). If you want to get fancy, fetch the content and do a distance function on that. I guess you can endlessly tweak that distance function, incorporate <meta canonical, etc. Probably unnecessary.
Then: order by distance asc limit 5, ask users “is your URL a dupe of any of these?”
Although a pretty solid alternative solution is: let the community deal with it. It’s not a huge problem at the moment, I don’t think anyone particularly minds (?). HN doesn’t do all it “should”, and (personally) that’s precisely what’s enjoyable. So what if there’s a dupe? Someone posts the original, problem solved :D
As long as nobody feels bad, everything’s rosy.
Start with a distance function from url to url. Easiest would be based on simple URL string distance (would have shown this as very similar). If you want to get fancy, fetch the content and do a distance function on that. I guess you can endlessly tweak that distance function, incorporate <meta canonical, etc. Probably unnecessary.
Then: order by distance asc limit 5, ask users “is your URL a dupe of any of these?”
Although a pretty solid alternative solution is: let the community deal with it. It’s not a huge problem at the moment, I don’t think anyone particularly minds (?). HN doesn’t do all it “should”, and (personally) that’s precisely what’s enjoyable. So what if there’s a dupe? Someone posts the original, problem solved :D
As long as nobody feels bad, everything’s rosy.
I have an idea:
Crawl the page, create similarity hashes of the text and image contents, and keep track of the metadata and outbound links, which will probably match or mostly match between page versions, and related pages (particularly if they contain social media tags, or author and publisher, etc.)
If any two submissions match text and images within some margin, or share the same links, consider one a possible dupe and ask the user if they want to post it or just vote up what seems to be the existing article (this will allow user curation to reduce false positives.) Also, automatically flag reposts for mod review later.
Crawl the page, create similarity hashes of the text and image contents, and keep track of the metadata and outbound links, which will probably match or mostly match between page versions, and related pages (particularly if they contain social media tags, or author and publisher, etc.)
If any two submissions match text and images within some margin, or share the same links, consider one a possible dupe and ask the user if they want to post it or just vote up what seems to be the existing article (this will allow user curation to reduce false positives.) Also, automatically flag reposts for mod review later.
Don't worry. HN threads are essentially dead after 24 hours because nobody is going to see your comment after that point. Much less in a three day old submission.
The idea of "watching" ads for profit has always amused me a little --- what if your mind is somewhere else or you're not looking at the screen? I suspect that those who don't all-out farm but still do such things are not really paying attention anyway. Of the people I know, no one actually pays any attention to ads even if they don't block them.
Also, when profits decline, you can still use the phones to host an Android app-testing service...
Also, when profits decline, you can still use the phones to host an Android app-testing service...
The demographic seems off to me for this: How much revenue is there to make from a customer that willingly spends their time watching ads? Is that the person you want to invest in? What's the ROI of paying people to watch your ads?
It's a form of ad fraud. P&G isn't paying ad farms intentionally.
At least nobody thinks that he's not paying attention. Aren't video ads all about subconscious tactics? For instance, it seems to me that some ads on YouTube, which are skippable after 5 seconds, really try to hook you to watch the rest. Really annoying.
same goes for commercials on tv, radio, etc... same business model.
Phone farming is actually easy to be banned if the investors apply appropriate fraud detection strategies such as IP/device ID collection or user behavior classification. I wouldn't think phone farming is as profitable as it used to be.
Looks like it's more profitable than altcoin mining!
Yes, but what is the break-even point, considering that each phone costs at least $50?
I think they would aim for $10-$15 per unit.
These buyers probably set a price floor for the lowest end of the market, between barely usable and the shredder.
They probably get some bulk deals from recyclers for the Grade D units.
Might even be able to make some Grade A or B units for resale if they have lots of parts.
These buyers probably set a price floor for the lowest end of the market, between barely usable and the shredder.
They probably get some bulk deals from recyclers for the Grade D units.
Might even be able to make some Grade A or B units for resale if they have lots of parts.
Doubt they use new phones, used can be gotten a lot cheaper
And used with broken screens are cheaper yet.
Would it be possible to just run 100 instances of an android emulator?
That part is addressed in the article.
> One farmer said they do sometimes virtualize phones on their PC, but due to how resource intensive that can be on the computer, it works out as more cost effective to have a selection of cheap phones instead.
And also it's pretty easy to detect.
Simply put: "It doesn't work like that." ™
> One farmer said they do sometimes virtualize phones on their PC, but due to how resource intensive that can be on the computer, it works out as more cost effective to have a selection of cheap phones instead.
And also it's pretty easy to detect.
Simply put: "It doesn't work like that." ™
Emulators would be immediately identifiable. This method can only work if the fraudstee has no fraud detection mechanism at all.
Depends what you’re emulating.
Instead of emulating the OS, you could emulate app by simulating the I/O network traffic.
PayTV pirates did this with smart cards: just replaced the entire thing with a chip that knew what to respond for each challenge/demand.
Instead of emulating the OS, you could emulate app by simulating the I/O network traffic.
PayTV pirates did this with smart cards: just replaced the entire thing with a chip that knew what to respond for each challenge/demand.
Everything is possible, and every measure has its counter. “Just replace the device with a chip that” is not in the same ballpark as “just use an emulator”.
How though? With Bluestacks you can emulate a few different types of phones including Google Pixels.
For native apps blacklist default emulator MSIN and similar attributes (and let the cat and mouse game begin).
For mobile web various fingerprinting techniques are available. As a fun (and quite irrelevant) example, you can immediately tell chrome, safari, firefox and node apart just with:
For mobile web various fingerprinting techniques are available. As a fun (and quite irrelevant) example, you can immediately tell chrome, safari, firefox and node apart just with:
atob('Ψ')
xI don't know. But I spent the better part of a day trying to prevent a game from detecting I was using an emulator.
Bluestacks in different configurations was among the things I tried.
Lost interest and decided the developers just don't want me as a potential customer.
Bluestacks in different configurations was among the things I tried.
Lost interest and decided the developers just don't want me as a potential customer.
I thought something along the same lines - fire up an old server and launch a couple hundred Android VMs. I doubt it'll even be that much expensive (if at all) compared to 100-200 phones drawing 5-10W each, or whatever devices of that size consume.
Phones can run full blast and charge with a 5w input.
With reduced screen brightness, I’d bet they’re at 2 or 3 watts per. That’s a few dollars a year for electricity, 24/7, per unit at 10c/kwh.
Would love to see some solar panel contraptions that switch between grid and solar, using whatever oomph the battery still has left.
With reduced screen brightness, I’d bet they’re at 2 or 3 watts per. That’s a few dollars a year for electricity, 24/7, per unit at 10c/kwh.
Would love to see some solar panel contraptions that switch between grid and solar, using whatever oomph the battery still has left.
You need actual registered phone IDs
Don't android and iOS ban identifying the actual device and instead require an ad if which can be regenerated be used?
What sort of phone ID - ICCID or IMEI, or something else?
Should be trivial to scrape them off the Internet. Or buy them.
Or virtual box with win or chromeos instanced. Easy peasy. (No, I don’t do this, but a fascinating problem space)
No, it doesn't work this way.
It would be wonderful if clever scammers could figure out a way to wreck the entire Internet advertising economy. Burn the whole thing down.
It would be wonderful if clever mortgage fraudsters could figure out a way to wreck the entire housing economy. Burn the whole thing down. It will make housing more affordable.
Actually that happened in 2008 and caused a terrible recession that effected more than just bankers.
Perhaps introducing regulation would be a better way of dealing with unscrupulous ad firms.
Actually that happened in 2008 and caused a terrible recession that effected more than just bankers.
Perhaps introducing regulation would be a better way of dealing with unscrupulous ad firms.
The alternative to regulation is if innovators could figure out a model where micro-transactions or payment for content actually work.
Because it's not like advertising is even that lucrative to begin with. Even Facebook, which is the king of ad monetization, only does about $120 annual ARPU for American users (and a lot less in other regions). That sounds like a lot until you realize the average user spends 38 minutes a day on the site. That's 30 cents per hour of use.
That comes with the clutter of the ads, the loss of privacy from all the tracking, much slower page loads, and lower content quality since the content algorithm's optimizing to maximize ad spend rather than user delight. I'd posit that the vast majority of Facebook users be much happier with $0.30 an hour for the much better ad-free experience.
And that's even in the most extreme ad-tilted case. Now consider a run-in-the-mill site like Reddit. Their annual ARPU is only about $1.00. That means Reddit's literally monetizing fractions of a penny per hour of use. I'm absolutely positive that all but those who are so cheap they're on verging on mentally ill, would pay one penny an hour to use Reddit.
Because it's not like advertising is even that lucrative to begin with. Even Facebook, which is the king of ad monetization, only does about $120 annual ARPU for American users (and a lot less in other regions). That sounds like a lot until you realize the average user spends 38 minutes a day on the site. That's 30 cents per hour of use.
That comes with the clutter of the ads, the loss of privacy from all the tracking, much slower page loads, and lower content quality since the content algorithm's optimizing to maximize ad spend rather than user delight. I'd posit that the vast majority of Facebook users be much happier with $0.30 an hour for the much better ad-free experience.
And that's even in the most extreme ad-tilted case. Now consider a run-in-the-mill site like Reddit. Their annual ARPU is only about $1.00. That means Reddit's literally monetizing fractions of a penny per hour of use. I'm absolutely positive that all but those who are so cheap they're on verging on mentally ill, would pay one penny an hour to use Reddit.
What regulations would you propose? Ad-tech is doing what advertising does, only better. They've taken the industry to its logical conclusions; a catastrophic surveillance system deployed to sell you shit.
The problem isn't ad-tech, it's not the surveillance, it's not even the data leaks or viruses; advertising itself is the problem. There's no amount of regulation that is going to make it "good," at best, it will remain a tumor on our free market system until it is excised once and for all. That is, assuming it doesn't kill it outright in its seemingly endless race to the bottom.
The problem isn't ad-tech, it's not the surveillance, it's not even the data leaks or viruses; advertising itself is the problem. There's no amount of regulation that is going to make it "good," at best, it will remain a tumor on our free market system until it is excised once and for all. That is, assuming it doesn't kill it outright in its seemingly endless race to the bottom.
Banning advertising would be the greatest imaginable victory for big brands and the end of small B2C business. The advertising that has already happened would get culturally locked in forever (would anybody forget Coca Cola?) and it would be illegal for new market entrants to change it.
I mean, this is just the logical conclusion of capitalism. A few monstrous companies dominating industry. It was held back from eating itself some time ago when a bunch of massive corps were broken up, but that doesn't happen anymore. Ironically, big business propaganda about how great big business is has swayed the public so far away from regulating it that there's now nothing standing in the way of capitalists destroying the capitalist system.
When the state of the world becomes untenable, the best thing to do is create a new one, right on top.
There is a part of the Internet where ads cannot/have not gone. Just use that. (Or the next one..)
There is a part of the Internet where ads cannot/have not gone. Just use that. (Or the next one..)
This is a strangely framed/toned article given the subject is run of the mill Fraud and not entrepreneurship as implied.
I know the term "fraud" is used throughout the article, but is this actually fraud in the legal sense? (I assume not).
I certainly don't see it as anything approaching fraud in the ethical sense. Advertisers are paying for clicks / "views", and that's what they're getting. If people want to game that system I see that as entirely fair game.
I certainly don't see it as anything approaching fraud in the ethical sense. Advertisers are paying for clicks / "views", and that's what they're getting. If people want to game that system I see that as entirely fair game.
The article is fairly careful not to call phone farming of inctivized add apps "fraud" directly (except for the first line).
I'm not sure I would include the behavior discussed in the article under "Ad Fraud". Usually "Ad Fraud" refers schemes where someone hosts an Ad and then fraudulently delivers fake traffic/clicks to that Ad to get paid.
My guess is that the real money and real players in this space are not running incentivized ad apps, but being paid to generate traffic for REAL Ad Fraud.
I'm not sure I would include the behavior discussed in the article under "Ad Fraud". Usually "Ad Fraud" refers schemes where someone hosts an Ad and then fraudulently delivers fake traffic/clicks to that Ad to get paid.
My guess is that the real money and real players in this space are not running incentivized ad apps, but being paid to generate traffic for REAL Ad Fraud.
this is not fraud
surreal to think a simple tasks can end up with individuals making over 2,000 USD on the side by phone farming.
Was probably a fun hobby that also earned money. They probably learned a lot in the process about how things work.
There’s a lot of transferable skills gained, but it can be hard to sell it to most employers.
Nobody cared about my hundreds of EBay sales on my resume in my late teens, but it taught me a lot:
Working with customers, how to sell and differentiate your product, managing money, managing inventory, getting cut out by Chinese competition with pricing you couldn’t possibly match...
There’s a lot of transferable skills gained, but it can be hard to sell it to most employers.
Nobody cared about my hundreds of EBay sales on my resume in my late teens, but it taught me a lot:
Working with customers, how to sell and differentiate your product, managing money, managing inventory, getting cut out by Chinese competition with pricing you couldn’t possibly match...
Doesn't seem all that simple. Quite a lot of knowledge is needed and a lot up continuous upkeep. The whole article is also more or less about how it doesn't really work all that well anymore.