It garbles advertisers’ data as a result, but you must disable uBlock Origin to run it; they can’t work simultaneously. I recently moved to it and, so far, am never looking back!

  • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always liked using this on the premise of privacy-through-obfuscation. If the powers that be must get information from me, then i’d prefer to give them garbage information.

  • renzev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know this is the good shit because when it first came out a few years back google was running a huge disinformation campaign against it. You’d search for “adnauseum” in google and the first result would be an article from some weird advertising company calling is “insecure” and “malware” without any actual argumentation behind those claims, while no other search engine returned that article (I lost the screenshots, so yall are just gonna have to take my word for it). They also delisted it from the chrome store for not discernible reason. They were afraid.

    But nowadays I’m willing to bet that they figured out how to detect adnauseum’s fake clicks and filtering it out. Stuff like that needs a talented development team to keep it up to date.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Couple of issues I’m wondering about…

    First, wouldn’t clicking on everything just make you easier to track?

    Second, how much bandwidth would all this use?

    • archonet@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      1. not in this way
      2. not enough to matter

      the way it works is sending an HTTP request that registers as a “click” to the advertiser (thus costing them money), but then doesn’t actually let the browser download any content and fetch the webpage, basically pi-holes the destination site and any attached tracking cookies. Combined with the fact that it does this to every ad, it would basically poison any click tracking.

      edit: pedants

      and before I get any more of you, this is just what I remember reading about adnauseam, do not take it as gospel, go look at AdNauseam’s FAQ.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        none

        Ah great

        it works [by] sending an HTTP request that registers as a “click” to the advertiser

        Uh, wait a minute. 🤔

        Sending a request also uses bandwidth, you know.

        • Bourff@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A basic GET request, even with a long querystring, will be negligible even on a 1998 dial-up connection.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Right, but thousands of them, possibly every day? Could perhaps affect your data consumption on your phone e.g. 🤷‍♂️

            Edit: I got it guys, thanks.

            • Bourff@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t know of any data plan that limits on the upload. Caps are usually on the download side, and TFA says it does not download the server response.

            • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You aren’t terribly familiar with how much traffic we generate nowadays… are you? If we were still on 2G and isdn / dsl sure. You’d likely see a slight latency jump. On anything from this last decade+ ? Not a chance.

              • Victor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not, am I. I hadn’t done any calculations regarding this. It was strictly hypothetical, as you can probably tell from the question mark and 🤷‍♂️. 👍

                • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ll be honest - you weren’t really presenting your case in that way. Understand my confusion: you seemed pretty adamant about your concern with no backing data on it. Most people pick their hills with something to back them.

            • archonet@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              lol

              furthermore: lmao.

              you’ve got to try a lot harder to “rustle” me, but I like your moxie for thinking you did, sport

              doing the math, even the cheapest phone plans that don’t explicitly exclude data, nowadays include at least 1GB of data for free. Usually more. Almost any reachable amount of outbound requests to click on ads would barely put a dent in your data allowance.

          • Fizz@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think we’re far past caring about a website logging an IP address.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m past caring about giving my IP to a website that I want to use, but what this is doing is handing out your information to every single advertiser that is published on any page you visit. In some cases this plugin would match the definition of “leaking personal data”.

              You do you though. I won’t stop you.

              • Fizz@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Most people dont have static IPs. All the ads would see is web requests from random residential ips from a certain country.

                • Colloidal@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t know about NZ (or wherever you are), but IP addresses for residential access in the US don’t really change all that much. It’s… concerning.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The advertisers are paying for the opportunity either way. Clicks cost them more money than just displaying the ad. Useless clicks cost them money for nothing.

  • Rimu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Google has put a lot of effort into detecting and blocking stuff like this. They call it “click fraud”, if you want to look it up.

    It’ll just mean they start ignoring clicks from you.

      • cageythree@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This feels like reverse psychology on a little kid.

        “That’s it, I’m not tracking you anymore! >:(”
        “Oooh nooo, what have I done! Oh how much I would wish to be tracked :(”
        “No, you won’t convince me to change my mind >:(”
        “Oh well, guess I’ll have to live without being tracked, what a shame that is.”

      • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure how true it was, but there was a YouTuber claiming that their videos were getting entirely demonetized because too many of their viewers had Ad blockers enabled. So even though 75% of people were seeing ads on the video, Google was keeping that ad revenue, withholding it all from the creator because 25% weren’t getting ads. The claim the youtuber made is that this will probably predominantly impact creators with a more tech savvy / privacy aware audience, resulting in less of that niche content.

        Anyway, this is anecdotal, but I wouldn’t put it past Google to pass the issue to the creators for the actions of their consumers, even though it’s not their fault.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know, just sounds like I’d be contributing to the marketers metrics so they can show “it works”. it’ll only make them invest in ads more. if anyone thinks capitalists are these genius level manipulators who know how everything works I only refer to the richest person alive being the least charismatic, least knowledgable, unfuckable troglodyte who keeps making an ass of himself.

    if any of these companies suffer any losses or reduced profits they’ll just fire hardworking people, not one of them will turn around and say maybe the ads aren’t working when you actively work to show them that it is working.

  • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interesting, was wondering about this. This would also “help” the websites with more ad income right?

  • morphballganon@mtgzone.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good start. Now make a version that clicks each ad a random number of times from randomly generated IP addresses.

      • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can fake your IP. There isnt really any authentication at the IP level. Just make a packet and overwite the IP field.

        Edit: I was corrected. The TCP handshake requires you to have a valid IP you can respond from. So even though you can fake your IP, you can’t use that to talk to most websites.