Google terms of service does not forbid users from producing invalid clicks either. (Point 1, it's called invalid, not fraudulent. Point 2, Google does forbid website owners, but not users.)
I am just objecting to your statement that when one uses Google's service, one is making any sort of agreement that one wouldn't block ads or produce invalid clicks. There is no such agreement.
Google implicitly forbids users by holding the website owner liable.
Years ago, I had a small site that ran banner ads. A couple of users found the site really useful so they clicked on lots of ads thinking that it would help the site. Unsurprisingly, I got banned, even though my visitors had the best intentions.
No, I'm sticking with fraudulent. The intent is to defraud. Even if you say there is no specific agreement, there's the morality issue. Your morals may allow you to essentially vandalize, mine do not.
The agreement may not be written down, but I think it's covered in the 'don't be an ass' part of the social contract.
"I did it, but it's not my responsibility." That's what I read from your reply. Suffice to say, we have different morals.
And no, I don't have anything that is ad supported. I dislike the tracking and security implications, but not enough to alter my morality. This is morally similar to vandalism, in my opinion.
If your okay with that, don't let me tell you how to live. I just can't justify harming people for something I can just block or ignore.
I am just objecting to your statement that when one uses Google's service, one is making any sort of agreement that one wouldn't block ads or produce invalid clicks. There is no such agreement.