Click Fraud or Cat Food?

It seems there's more media interest in Paid to Read programs. Or more specifically, Paid to Search programs, if in fact there's really any difference. The way I see it, in the vast majority of cases, there isn't. But Verne Kopytoff, from the San Francisco Chronicle, is posting over at GetPaidForum hoping to get some inside info about what's going on.

Of course the first response is from Sini Martonen, a co-owner of PolarPTR. Now don't get me wrong, as far as PTRs go, PolarPTR is just about as good as they get, and Sini is a great owner who's done more good for the PTR industry than just about anybody. But PolarPTR sends out loads of ads for search portals. Of course there's absolutely no kind of coersion or encouragement for members to search. Polar is just one of the many programs that has attracted a large enough group of members who either a) choose to do dozens of searches a day using third-rate search engines, with absolutely no regard for the money they're being paid to visit the portals in the first place; or b) know what they need to do to keep the click fraud gravy train rolling and perform "valid searches" accordingly.

Then there's PTRHost's response.

As to why people join these sites that are search only...........my guess is that for members who join these sites................they do so to make pocket change to be able to afford things they can not afford offline due to living on fixed or limited incomes and have no ability to bring in that extra cash.

I'm assuming the majority of those who join search sites are not in the position to calculate in the moral or legal debate of whether or not a site that requires searches is doing the morally and legally correct thing.

I believe that those who live on fixed and limited incomes are lured to the search required sites because it allows them to earn money to pay for medicines, food and/or the so called unnecessary items in life that others................who are able to make the distinction between joining moral and legally correct sites..............because they belong to paid to read programs for the original purpose of them in the first place..................which is to view advertising of interest...........and possibly finding a bargain on physical wares.

-- snip --

The problem I think is that for now this assumed click fraud issue is not a matter of those members of those programs really intending to commit fraud.............I do believe that many do what is required at these search sites so that they can survive in real life when no other options are available to them to live in such a fashion that they do not have to decide is it tunafish I eat today or cat food.

So PTRHost thinks a lot of the human clickbots involved in click fraud do it because they're too poor to concern themselves with ethics, morality and the law. They shouldn't be held responsible for their actions (and they need take no responsibility themselves) because playing their part in ripping off advertisers may well mean the difference in being able to afford vital medication or doing without, or eating regular canned tuna instead of cat food.

I accept that there are many people all over the world who find themselves in positions where they feel they have to do whatever it takes to survive. People in these situations often involve themselves in activities which may not be very ethical, moral or legal. In some cases, they know what they're doing is wrong, but since they don't know what else to do, they feel that they have no choice. In other cases, they rationalize their actions, blame others, or whatever it takes so that they don't feel guilty.

But how many people involved in PTR are really in such desperate circumstances? Are they really going to have to eat cat food if they stop participating in click fraud? Considering that with a few possible exceptions, they all own computers and pay for Internet access, I seriously doubt that's the case. I think the money going to the ISP would be more than enough to pay for the upgrade to tuna that's fit for human consumption. Is there really no honest/ethical/moral/legal way for them to make the money?

I find it hard to believe that so many desperately poor people have no other way to support themselves except through what basically amounts to petty theft. I don't think these people would feel their situations were desperate enough to justify mugging people, shoplifting or picking pockets. But participating in click fraud doesn't seem to worry them. Is it the nature of their actions -- sitting in front of a computer clicking links? Is it that they really don't see how every penny they earn has to come out of somebody else's pocket? Is it that they believe all the bullshit that's being constantly being spread about how they aren't really doing anything wrong?

Or is it that performing the functions of a human clickbot is just too damned easy? I mean, I've written about all sorts of ways to earn money online, but I don't think any of them are as easy (and mind-numbingly boring) as clicking paid links for hours and hours every day.