6 ms·

> One, AdNauseam, clicks every ad on every page I visit, baffling ad networks. This seems like a bad idea for everyone involved: * You leak more information t

by JD557 11y ago

> One, AdNauseam, clicks every ad on every page I visit, baffling ad networks. This seems like a bad idea for everyone involved: * You leak more information to the ad network (or at least make your datapoint it more prominent in the database) * You get worst ads (if the ad network uses a smart algorithm to serve personalized ads) * The ad network gets info with worse information, so it will probably serve worst ads to everyone else (if a lot of people use this) * The site you visited might end up receiving less money, as it can be accused of click fraud (if a lot of people use this) Using an ad blocker seems like a much better option (I believe they actually block most of the tracking javascript from even being loaded, so you are probably not tracked anyway). Am I missing something here?

userbinator 11y ago
I think that's sort of the point - to drive ad networks and those who support them into the ground. It's certainly taking the offensive side: "they track which ads we click to find out our interests? Let's click everything so they can't figure out a single thing." Ad networks do have protections against click fraud already, and just block/ignore users who click much more than usual - which to someone who doesn't want ads could be seen as a good thing.
function_seven 11y ago
1) I don't care if my datapoint is prominent, if it's bogus. 2) I've never once thought about the quality of the ads I see. I can't imagine being disappointed that the ads "are worse". They're ads, they're bad to begin with. 3) Again, not concerned with the quality of ads others get. 4) If lots of people use this, then it will be impossible for advertisers to distinguish between click fraud by the site and click fraud by the end-users. The goal is to make click-tracking futile. The point of AdNauseam is to make tracking useless. So your points are all endorsements of its effectiveness.
freshhawk 11y ago
I think you're simply completely missing the goals at play here. To your points about getting worse ads and creating an environment were worse ads are served ... that's the point. "Serving good ads" and "Having a reasonably accurate and reasonably complete profile of me" are different ways of saying the same thing in this context. The fact that you feel "I get good ads" is a good thing for users is the core disagreement you are looking for, this what you are missing. To the last point: Yes, those who benefit from the collection of their users personal data may be penalized by the system they benefit from when their users act against the interests of the ad networks. Again though, given the implied goals at play here, this likely isn't seen as a bad outcome but as incentive to stop funnelling your users information to a 3rd party for money. As an aside, your first point is wrong: You leak less personal information by this kind of fuzzing, they already have your browser fingerprint and so on, getting more copies of them isn't useful. Using an ad blocker is defensive, this is offensive. Which is better depends on your goals.

by JD557 11y ago

userbinator 11y ago

I think that's sort of the point - to drive ad networks and those who support them into the ground. It's certainly taking the offensive side: "they track which ads we click to find out our interests? Let's click everything so they can't figure out a single thing." Ad networks do have protections against click fraud already, and just block/ignore users who click much more than usual - which to someone who doesn't want ads could be seen as a good thing.

function_seven 11y ago

1) I don't care if my datapoint is prominent, if it's bogus. 2) I've never once thought about the quality of the ads I see. I can't imagine being disappointed that the ads "are worse". They're ads, they're bad to begin with. 3) Again, not concerned with the quality of ads others get. 4) If lots of people use this, then it will be impossible for advertisers to distinguish between click fraud by the site and click fraud by the end-users. The goal is to make click-tracking futile. The point of AdNauseam is to make tracking useless. So your points are all endorsements of its effectiveness.

freshhawk 11y ago

I think you're simply completely missing the goals at play here. To your points about getting worse ads and creating an environment were worse ads are served ... that's the point. "Serving good ads" and "Having a reasonably accurate and reasonably complete profile of me" are different ways of saying the same thing in this context. The fact that you feel "I get good ads" is a good thing for users is the core disagreement you are looking for, this what you are missing. To the last point: Yes, those who benefit from the collection of their users personal data may be penalized by the system they benefit from when their users act against the interests of the ad networks. Again though, given the implied goals at play here, this likely isn't seen as a bad outcome but as incentive to stop funnelling your users information to a 3rd party for money. As an aside, your first point is wrong: You leak less personal information by this kind of fuzzing, they already have your browser fingerprint and so on, getting more copies of them isn't useful. Using an ad blocker is defensive, this is offensive. Which is better depends on your goals.