19 ms·

AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store

345 points by yuvadam 10y ago

optimuspaul 10y ago
Perhaps because it was costing them money and making their tracking data less valuable. Perhaps if AdNauseam stopped the clicking portion the ban would be lifted.
- cqz 10y ago
  Making their tracking data useless is kind of the point of the extension. Obviously it's well within Google's interests to stop people using it. I guess if you're privacy minded it's probably best not to use a browser made by a giant ad company.
  - andybak 10y ago
    I'm not sure how I'd feel if something like this became widespread and I was paying Google for clicks. Well. I guess that's the point. But then surely it's fairly understandable for Google to try and stop them - at least on their own turf? Google doesn't fund Chrome out of a sense of altruism - they want to have control over those aspects of the web-browsing ecosystem that potentially threaten their bottom line. And here is that strategy behaving exactly as it should. You want the stuff Google has paid to build? You probably have to accept that "I want to automatically hide and click ads" falls under the banner of "maybe you should use a different browser then".
    - kuschku 10y ago
      > they want to have control over those aspects of the web-browsing ecosystem that potentially threaten their bottom line. That’s exactly what they can’t do, and where antitrust laws come in. Google has to run Chrome out of altruism, or not at all.
- nix0n 10y ago
  I think you're right, uBlock Origin is working fine for me on Chrome at the moment.
- malka 10y ago
  This is MY user agent, not google's. I should be able to install whatever the fuck add on I want on it. Removing the add on from computer where it was already installed is incredibly user hostile. So I installed Firefox and adNauseam on it. I was not a user before.
- ashark 10y ago
  I hope that means what they're doing is effective and this publicity leads to wider adoption, then. The current form of user-data-vacuuming advertising and the business models it enables are the worst things to happen to the Web certainly, and probably to consumer computer tech more generally. It can't die fast enough.
mtarnovan 10y ago
Wow, 'Do no evil' huh?
- tyingq 10y ago
  I assume AdNauseam's random clicking is viewed as click fraud[1] by Google. Then, I'm guessing click fraud falls under the "Interfering with Third-party Ads and Websites" section[2] of the developer policy. [1]https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/16737?hl=en https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/16737?hl=en [2]https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/program_policies https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/program_policies (ctrl-f, then search for "Interfering with Third-party Ads and Websites") Edit: Hmm, below is correct. The "single purpose" policy is pretty hard to understand, and the reason Google gave for banning it. The policy above would seem more applicable.
  - NoGravitas 10y ago
    That's not the justification the store gave for banning it, though.
  - mcintyre1994 10y ago
    A policy of not "Interfering with Apps, Third-party Ads, or Device Functionality" in the Chrome Store sounds like it'd outrule every adblocker. The description of that rule also doesn't seem to apply: "Ads associated with your app must not interfere with other apps, ads, or the operation of the device, including system or device buttons and ports." It's specifically under the ads section of the policy. I'm not sure the policy applies in any way to Chrome either: "...ensure that together we continue to deliver the world's most innovative and trusted apps to over a billion people through Google Play." EDIT: The link has been changed and now points to the equivalent Chrome Store policy. My other 2 points remain true though.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      I was just trying to guess their underlying reason. I can see, however, a view that "not loading" an ad doesn't qualify as "interfering" with it...but clicking on it for the purpose of disruption is considered "interfering". Also, I updated the link to point at chrome extension policy vs app store policy. The wording is similar.
xwowsersx 10y ago
Can someone explain what the point of silently clicking the ads is? Why not just block them? Does clicking the ads somehow aid in blocking or is it a way of fighting back against perceived abuses by advertisers?
- tetrep 10y ago
  The idea is to mess with advertisers' metrics. If people using ad blockers are peaceful protesters, AdNauseam is trying to riot.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    Assuming they aren't detected as fraudulent, it's messing with more than metrics. The advertisers, in many cases, are paying per click. Edit: Not making a judgement here, just clarifying that the extension is doing more than messing with metrics.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Aldo_MX 10y ago
      The advertisers don't mind paying for disruptive, intrusive, battery-draining, bandwidth-consuming, rich-media advertisements, so I don't mind draining their wallets.
      - VikingCoder 10y ago
        You just said, "The sites I visit don't mind receiving money for disruptive, intrusive, battery-draining, bandwidth-consuming, rich-media advertisements, so I don't mind draining their wallets." If there's someone who makes content you like to see, why don't you mind draining their wallet?
        Aldo_MX 10y ago
        If there's someone who makes content I like to see, I purchase their merchandising, books, courses, assist to their events, etc., that's pretty simple. Why support the middle man who just makes the Internet a worse place when you can directly support an author's efforts? The advertisement business model just exists to justify the existence of low quality content.
alexpoulsen 10y ago
No privacy/security/adblocking user should use Chrome; it's a browser made the company you block ads from and tracks you whether or not the ads are there. Use Firefox, Safari, open source chromium, MS Edge, or anything else, just not Chrome. Also a Safari extension would be very nice.
menegattig 10y ago
Few month ago we developed and launched an AI-based AdBlocker (called AdFilter) and also had several problems with Google Chrome Web Store. Almost every week they had a "strange reason" to remove our extension from the Google Chrome Web Store. We had more than 380,000 DAU (Daily Active Users) from 36 countries with all good feedbacks on Google Chrome Web Store, but even so, Google always tried to find a way to get us delisted and sometimes removed... they called it "an automated review process that is not performed by humans". Every time this happened we need to send several messages to all available email address to get our extension approved and listed again in 24-48 hours. After facing this kind of situation more than 12 times, we simply gave up and remembered that it's not worth trying to build a business (or App) on top 3rd party company, like Google or FB.
- losteric 10y ago
  It's possible to install Chrome extensions outside of the store: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...
  - diggan 10y ago
    > Earlier this week, on Jan 1st 2017, we were informed by our users that Google had banned AdNauseam from its Chrome Web Store. We’ve since learned that Google now also disallows users from manually installing and updating AdNauseam, thus locking users out of their own saved data, all with no prior notice or warning.
    - losteric 10y ago
      I'm not sure why you're quoting that? I literally just installed the plugin. Google has blocked installing AdNauseam from the Chrome store and installing the .crx file manually. Manually installing the developer package is completely unhampered.
      - snowwolf 10y ago
iUsedToCode 10y ago
This is why i don't use Chrome. Enough of my life is in google's hands. I believe they are already too big. I wish for a more open smartphone ecosystem and better tools for privacy.
- m-p-3 10y ago
  I use Chrome, but I don't exclusively rely on it. I always have both Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox installed on my systems/devices.
  - wildrhythms 10y ago
    Can I ask if there's a good way to keep bookmarks synced between Chrome and Firefox? I know about Xmarks[1] but I'm just curious if there's another way that doesn't involve storing my bookmarks on a third party. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/xmarks-sync/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/xmarks-sync/
    - j_s 10y ago
      You are looking to sync bookmarks through a server you host yourself? Any other option involves a 3rd party, no? If you don't care about sync / mobile then just use a local .html file. Maybe this could be Dropbox'd around but there's that 3rd party problem!
      - wildrhythms 10y ago
        >You are looking to sync bookmarks through a server you host yourself? Sure, just a way to keep bookmarks synced when I might switch systems/browsers without having to manually export-import them every time.
everyone 10y ago
Who uses Chrome anyway? .. Question: I'm not a web dev, Ive never heard of this. I currently use adblock plus and privacy badger. Does this do what they do? Would it be a good idea to install them all? If not which solution do you think is the most hardcore in terms of privacy. thanks!
- iUsedToCode 10y ago
  Consider using Ublock Origin, lightweight, more honest and well behaving adblocker.
- pimlottc 10y ago
  > Who uses Chrome anyway? Over 50% of all desktop users [0], or, in other words, hundreds of millions of people. 0: https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0 https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    GP should have asked "Who uses Chrome AND is privacy conscious enough to be interested in this?" Those demographics shouldn't really overlap much. It's like making a product for people who like hanging around in a casino but don't like gambling.
    - jstanley 10y ago
      I use Chromium because Firefox's performance is too terrible, but I consider myself privacy-conscious.
      - gog 10y ago
        Where do you get the binaries? Or do you build it yourself?
        jstanley 10y ago
pricechild 10y ago
There's related discussion on this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13325507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13325507 Not only is it apparently banned from the store, but also it's being removed from existing user's machines, on top of not allowing new installs. Edit: Going to quote my thread from that discussion as this announcement confirms they were banned over the single use policy... > Other ad blockers "block ads" and "block annoying eu cookie notices". Should they be removed? > I just visited the Chrome store and chose the first extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/office-online/ndjp.. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/office-online/ndjp.... It makes word documents AND spreadsheets?! > Hopefully you can see where I'm going... whatever's written in the policy is difficult to enforce literally. Someone has to make the distinction based upon the intent of that policy. A person has to draw the line. If Google have made the decision based on that policy, well that's their decision. > Reading https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose (part 4) makes me thinking "disrupting ad networks" could be that single purpose. Then it'd cover blocking & clicking. Just like "Office Online"'s "edit office documents" covering both "word processing" and "spreadsheets".
- FilterSweep 10y ago
  Hey man, I think your discussion points finally reached the real reason why "single use policy" applies differently for Office Online than it does to AdNauseum. AdNauseam team are intelligent and they probably realize it as well. In their self-description: > AdNauseam, a not-for-profit, research-based privacy tool, hides and clicks every tracking ad that it identifies in order to resist the opaque collection, analysis and monetization of private user data, and to challenge the intrusive and unethical business model that currently dominates the web. Ital. gives you the justification Google could use to block the product. "Disrupting Ad Networks" is the single purpose, but while "Ad Blockers" are a simple nuisance to Ad Networks and 3rd party revenue streams, "Ad Obfuscators" poses a threat to affiliate marketers and resellers who may interact through Google's channels. (In my opinion.....) Is AdNauseum justified in their work? ABSOLUTELY YES. But there are other hands at play. This also explains why Google is working so hard to block updating or new installs of it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
I find it interesting that this particular Adblocker is being removed, while countless others remain. I suspect that other adblockers like, say, ABP or UBO, are less damaging to the agent fingerprint than an adblocker that clicks everything.
- Spoom 10y ago
  AdNauseam silently clicks the ads as you mention, so they're actively messing with Google's ad statistics. If I was Google, I would consider it an attack too.
  - m-p-3 10y ago
    Yup, basically an distributed attack on their ad networks. Hopefully they'll also release a Mozilla Firefox add-on.
    - kome 10y ago
      They have it: https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
  - xigency 10y ago
    Then why doesn't Google find some terms or change their terms or policy that clearly indicates why they are taking down the extension? It doesn't make sense to mislead the extension developers by giving them a nonsense reason for taking it down. Obviously, they believe the extension is destructive. So, they should use that as their rationale in taking it down.
  - jstanley 10y ago
    It is an attack on Google, but if they want people to perceive Chrome as benevolent, they must leave this extension alone. By blocking the extension (and, no less, actively removing it from places it was already installed!) they just reveal that the Chrome store exists primarily to serve their own interests and is not for the benefit of the user.
  - fixermark 10y ago
nimbix 10y ago
"Company which makes its money from advertising bans automated click fraud extension from being used in its browser."
- acobster 10y ago
  Not that I'm really surprised by Google's action, but "fraud" is a pretty strong word for what's happening, and pretty disingenuous IMO. No one's pretending to be anyone they're not.
  - nimbix 10y ago
    Click fraud is a standard industry term for robot initiated clicks, which this is a case of. What this extension generates are certainly not legitimate clicks form interested users, or even unintentional clicks that happen due to various reasons (some HN readers like to blame them on dark patterns, but they're really just of a consequence of the fact that ad tech is just not that great in general).
    - kylebenzle 10y ago
      No, it is not. It is an industry term for robot initiated clicks for the purpose of profiting, that is the "FRAUD" part, just clicking random ads is not defrauding any party to the benefit of another, it just wastes resources.
      - floweringlotus 10y ago
        Do you think it is fraud to order a pizza to be delivered to someone else's house, because you are a vegetarian and wish to destroy the business model of meat-based pizza? How about doing this to every pizza store you encounter that serves meat? You're not profiting..just wasting a business's resources by misrepresenting your identity and intentions.
        spaceribs 10y ago
andrewclunn 10y ago
Hello Firefox and Opera. I'm suddenly in the market for a new browser.
- mixedCase 10y ago
  I moved the other day from Chromium to Firefox Developer Edition due to some bugs. It has substantially improved in responsiveness over the past few months, Chrome/Chromium really isn't worth the price of admission.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  I never switched from Firefox. It had more of the tools I needed and at the time, Chrome's plugins architecture didn't allow sidebars at all. I also hate how Google took pieces of WebKit and Gecko and smooshed them together into a closed browser (which they only opened up later). Granted WebKit was gobbled up from KHTML, but at least Apple expanded on it and contributed back, at least initially.
Spoom 10y ago
At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised? AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money. Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense. There is even a method to install it directly[1] which AFAIK Google has not blocked. Granted, if Google were not both running the browser and the ad network, these actions probably wouldn't have been taken. But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top. 1. https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...
- NoGravitas 10y ago
  According to TFA, they are also blocking manual installs and updates.
  - Spoom 10y ago
    If true, that would be a bit more disappointing. Can someone verify? Edit: Keep in mind I'm referring to developer mode installation per the link above, not directly installing the extension package from the store or a file.
    - Artemis2 10y ago
      I tried earlier today in Chrome Canary in developer mode and after a short while the extension disabled itself. When I try to enable it back again the console on the Extensions page says "Unchecked runtime.lastError while running management.setEnabled: Extension kkendhmcacabobepidajpejenjinojhp cannot be modified by user."
      - malka 10y ago
        100% assholish on google side to disable side loading for a very specific extension. The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension.
jmcdiesel 10y ago
What point did we begin to feel entitled to do whatever we want in someone else's software? If someone wants to kick you out of there house for no reason, you leave their house. You're not paying to be there, you're not paying to publish there... you have no intrinsic "right" to be there... you were there as a privilege - when it disappears, for whatever reason, there is no reason other than a false sense of entitlement to whine about it...
- tyingq 10y ago
  >You're not paying to be there It's not a huge amount, but you do pay to be there. See https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/publish https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/publish "Before you publish your first app, you must pay a one-time $5 developer signup fee"
- ebbv 10y ago
  > there is no reason other than a false sense of entitlement to whine about it So the rest of us shouldn't be aware of what Google is doing and base our choice of browser on that? I agree Google, Apple, etc. are absolutely entitled to kick people from their stores for whatever reason they want. But, we should also be informed of this especially when it seems to be based on self interest rather than protecting their users.
  - jmcdiesel 10y ago
    The difference comes in the tone... When the tone is more accusatory than informative, it invites plenty of criticism...
- jstanley 10y ago
  If you act like you're running your house for the benefit of the public, don't be surprised if people get upset when you start throwing out people you don't like.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ben0x539 10y ago
square90 10y ago
The Firefox extension review turned this up: "If you have a YouTube channel (s) and your logged in to that channel it will get your channel suspended for Violation of TOU #4 Section H" [1] Has anyone else confirmed this behavior on YouTube? 1. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/reviews/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/rev...
- GlickWick 10y ago
  Of course this could happen. This plugin automates clicking ads on a page, which does directly violate exactly what that section of the TOU is saying.
  - nimbix 10y ago
    The users of this extension have a clear case of the "I'm allowed to poke the dog with a stick, but the dog is not allowed to bite me" mentality, so it's a complete surprise to them when it happens.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      more like "I'm allowed to defend myself from the attacking dog by using the stick." I'm not surprised they want to take my stick away, but that doesn't make Google's actions any less shady.
      - strictnein 10y ago
        The dog, in this case, is protecting their property. They're not in your yard, you're in their yard. So get out of their yard if you don't like the dog.
        em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
        But the internet packets are sent to your computer, so it is your yard that the dog is throwing things at.
Pica_soO 10y ago
If Google where clever they would welcome this as creative destruction and search for a way to diversify there revenue stream mono-culture. But they cant, because they are the gold standard, and everything new will look like dirt besides the dairy cow that keeps the comfy live afloat. Thus google has become Microsoft, and Microsoft has become Google, the cycle is complete.
- halflings 10y ago
  So, you think Google simply does not want to "diversify there revenue stream", and haven't tried to do so? What about Android, DeepMind, self-driving cars, etc.?
  - Pica_soO 10y ago
    All "hobbyist" projects, gunned down before they could be taken by the likes of elon-musk to the runway. For you shall not have other power-cores in a company, beside the one.
  - scott_karana 10y ago
    You have the correlation and causation backwards. Google doesn't start side projects to make more money: they make more money (on ads) so they can have fun, unprofitable side projects.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
downandout 10y ago
It's pretty simple: this has to be wreaking havoc with Adsense - depleting ad budgets, artificially inflating CTRs, and giving website owners revenue they didn't earn. This extension also exposes website owners to unfair Adsense bans for generating high numbers of invalid clicks, which can cost them two months of revenue that is almost always withheld when Google bans a site. So by using this you could be costing someone (your favorite blogger etc.) their livelihood. If you are going to block ads, block them. Don't click on them.
- siegecraft 10y ago
  Were there really enough people using this to cause such an impact?
  - downandout 10y ago
    I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a favorite site of even one AdNauseum user. Adsense is very sensitive to stuff like this, especially in higher CPC niches.
    - Fnoord 10y ago
      Why not? On the short term, you get more income from ad revenue. Who knows what the effect on the long term is going to be.
      - downandout 10y ago
        You would be banned - very fast. You would never actually receive the money since Adsense pays out on a two month delay. They are very good at identifying this type of activity and the webmaster is the one that pays the price.
        kuschku 10y ago
        Well, if that’s true, within of months, half of websites will have to search for a new ad network, and we might get a chance at less intrusive ads.
NoGravitas 10y ago
It appears that AdNauseam is based on uBlock Origin. So giving the extra middle finger to advertisers does not mean giving up on first class ad blocking capabilities.
iopq 10y ago
Installed AdNauseam on Firefox as soon as I heard. Never heard of this extension before, now I'll use it!
- deadcast 10y ago
  Yeah I just installed it as well and it's fun seeing all of the content that gets clicked on. Searching on Google shows at least 15 ads clicked/blocked. No wonder they hate this extension!
  - tux1968 10y ago
    I heard about it before, but wasn't really motivated to check it out. Just installed it in Firefox and it seems to operate as you'd expect. This might be an opportunity for Firefox to regain some market share.
snowwolf 10y ago
If the only reason Google have banned this from the Web Store is because it violates the Single Purpose Policy (https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose) - i.e. Blocking AND Clicking Ads, then an interesting test would be to split the extension in 2 - One extension to block all ads on the page, and one extension to click all ads on the page. And then see if they are then both accepted into the store. And as this is a fork of uBlock, you don't really need the first extension - Why don't they just develop an extension whose single purpose is to click all ads on a page and recommend users also install uBlock?
- ComodoHacker 10y ago
  Automated clicking on ads is a click fraud. It will never be accepted by Google.
  - frenchy 10y ago
    Automate clicking on the ads by the website owner is click fraud. This isn't click fraud because the consumers never agreed to anything. Doesn't mean Google will accept it, obviously.
ComodoHacker 10y ago
Is there a saved version of AdNauseam Web Store page?
abhv 10y ago
By clicking on the ads automatically, it seems like Adnauseum actually supports the underlying website (which earns $$) while also performing the function of muBlock. It is currently the best of both worlds! I would like an AdNauseum type interface for video.
- halflings 10y ago
  A user that clicks on all ads they are shown will most likely be blacklisted as a bot (rightly so, as they are using an auto-clicking bot).
  - ben0x539 10y ago
    If you're blacklisted as a bot, does Google stop serving you ads? :P
- acdha 10y ago
  > By clicking on the ads automatically, it seems like Adnauseum actually supports the underlying website (which earns $$) while also performing the function of muBlock That theory works until someone notices that the extra clicks aren't leading to anything else, complains about click fraud, and then the website is penalized with fines, account suspension, etc. That small site likely won't even have the resources to defense themselves effectively. There's also an interesting security question: do you really want to automatically click on the next zero-day deployed through an ad network?
keldaris 10y ago
Thanks, Google. I'd never heard of this extension before now and had often wondered in the past why no one had thought of this strategy to screw with online tracking and data collection. The free PR is great, and now AdNauseam has another new user. :)
- colept 10y ago
  Because Google is not "the man" in this scenario that you're sticking it to - it's the website owner whose content you're consuming. Google gets paid either way, and AdNauseam is pennies on their dollar. Webmaster however, depend on advertising revenue to keep publishing.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Google is not the one we're trying to "stick it to". They are far from the worst player in this space. Moreover, AdNauseam is not meant as a surgical strike against some player in particular, but as a carpet bombing of the whole ad scene. Which, IMO, totally deserves it, and the collateral damage dealt to some publishers is totally worth it.
    - colept 10y ago
      > collateral damage dealt to some publishers is totally worth it. Said a clown before the rodeo. The collateral damage is putting small independent publishers out of business and reinforcing monopolies in publishing. If you think tracking is going to be less pervasive by knocking down the little guys, you are sorely mistaken. > ‘We know your dark secrets. We know everything.’ - Steve Huffman from Reddit When all that's left is Reddit, Google, and Facebook - the collateral damage is the same thing you're trying to protect.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Monopolies in publishing seem to depend much more on ad revenue than small, independent publishers - who tend to utilize solutions like Parteon, fundraisers, donate buttons, referrals, sponsorship or just plain old self-hosting like in the good old days. There are plenty of alternative strategies available to players big and small, and the only thing I can see dying off is all the crap that the Internet drowned in since people started monetizing eyeballs.
vlunkr 10y ago
I just confirmed you can install this manually in Chromium still. https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission#manual-install https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...
- j_s 10y ago
  Yes. As stated elsewhere, this must be done each time the browser is restarted.
Artemis2 10y ago
Everytime a Google product makes it to the front page a Google engineer chimes in. No one today? https://hn.algolia.com/?query="i%20work%20at%20google"&dateRange=pastYear&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query="i%20work%20at%20google"&dateR...
inetsee 10y ago
I am curious. I have a question for all of the people who are in favor of AdNauseum. How would you react if a website provider was able to detect that you were using AdNauseum, and they blocked your access to their website? Edit: Expand the question to include other adblockers, not just AdNauseum.
- Spivak 10y ago
  I would first argue that being able to detect the presence of specific extension(s) is leaking too much information about the client to the website but that's probably unrelated. In principle there's no problem with sites that refuse users that don't view ads, I don't visit them, but I take no issue with them. However, if I request a remote resource from your site and you transfer it to me, you have no say in what my client chooses to do with it. Do you think it is unethical, immoral, or should be illegal to pay someone to clip the ads out of a free magazine before I read it?
- disposablename 10y ago
  Simple: I would stop using the site!
- tylerscheuble 10y ago
  I would disable AdNauseum for that website if I am unable to find a sufficient alternative.
- ben0x539 10y ago
  In general I'm okay with websites saying, "hey, if you block our ads, we don't want you using our site". I think only a few big sites are doing that so far, typically it's not the kind of site that I'd be sad over. If it was more prevalent, eg. if Google somehow managed to arrange for all sites serving Google ads to stop working if ads are blocked, that'd change the dynamic. Ultimately it's not gonna lead to me clicking on any more ads and then buying people's stuff, so I don't think it's in Google's interest, but it'd be interesting to see.
- godshatter 10y ago
  If the website was one I liked and actually wanted them to get revenue, I would white list them in the extension. I do this on rare occasions when I find sites I really like that object to ad blockers. Usually, though, I haven't been allowed to see their content so no harm done. I just go find something else to click on.
woah 10y ago
Why not make a Safari extension? Apple has little incentive to defend Google and Facebook's business models.
- FT_intern 10y ago
  because no one who would use the extension (aka tech savy people) would use Safari
__ddd__ 10y ago
As many have pointed out, Google could handle this in their end and avoided pissing off a small but well defined group of users/developers. My guess is that they decided it wasn't worthwhile because they have some privileged ideas about the direction web marketing will be taking in years to come. As user behavior tracking and analysis techniques become more refined, ads won't be needed as much as they are now. Instead, ads will be placed in high impact areas/sites, and the intel to decide who sees what ads will be acquired even from sites with no ads. Better UX, deeper knowledge of users, simpler monetization strategies for publishers. Sure, it will be even more invasive of privacy, but it won't _feel_ that way to most users. This will require heavier use of NLP and ML, two things Google devotes a whole lot of time and money for.
fixermark 10y ago
How confident are people that it's not actually functionally malware? If it's simulating clicks on every ad, what is its mechanism for protecting a user's client from ad-delivered malware that has now been activated without the user's knowledge?
xkxx 10y ago
On the brighter side, AdNauseam got a lot of publicity due to the ban and will get even more. AdNauseam got acknowledged by Google as being dangerous to their business model. This fact is very good, in my opinion. Personally, I first heard about this extension a month ago and didn't pay much attention to it then. Now I want to install it.
corv 10y ago
Haven't heard of AdNauseam before but I think I'm going to install it now.
bfrog 10y ago
After seeing this I installed AdNauseam. Google just gave them the best kind of marketing possible.
Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
Wikipedia summarizes fruad as "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right." The user does not unlawfully gain and the ad provider doesn't have a legal right that's being infringed on here. Some legal resource I found online says that in the US fraud requires: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. [1] Note that "material fact" here is a legally significant phrase, and implies a written agreement or some other mutually agreed to terms that establish the expectation - which never happened between you and the ad provider. No matter how you slice it the user of ad nauseum is not committing fraud. This misinformation needs to stop. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
- VikingCoder 10y ago
  "I am this browser, requesting this content on behalf of the user, who clicked on this ad." Walk me through this, okay?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
    I don't understand what you're asking for.
    - VikingCoder 10y ago
      The user is using an extension that, on their behalf, is directing the browser to request content, acting as if the user had clicked on an ad. (1) a false statement of a material fact The extension is telling the site, "I am this browser (user agent), requesting this content (what's behind this ad url), who clicked on this ad (calling the onClick handler of the element that has the ad." That's not true. The user did not click on the ad. (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue The user knows they did not click on the ad. (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim Everyone in this thread is saying it's to confuse the metrics, and some are saying it's to purposefully take money from the advertisers. (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement The vast majority of HTTP GETs to URLs that are only found as href on Ads are requested because the user clicked on the Ad in their browser. Can you name even ONE other time a browser follows the onClick event on an Ad? (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. Money. So, walk me through how this is not fraud?
jrw 10y ago
Hadn't heard of AdNauseam before. Immediately installed it for my primary browser Firefox.
smarx007 10y ago
I always thought Stallman's ideas were _too_ crazy. Until I struggled with Chrome for 10 minutes trying (and failing) to install this extension in a way that wouldn't bother me. And then I realised that Chrome is dictating what can I do on _my_ computer and what I can't. This year I will try to fix the rough edges in any FF plugins I use instead of switching back to Chrome. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computing.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computin...
em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
they posted link on homepage on how to install on Chrome bypassing webstore about 7 hours ago: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...
Jordrok 10y ago
Well, I just spent the the past hour or so installing Firefox, setting it up with my preferences/imported bookmarks/extensions, and uninstalling Chrome. In the grand scheme of things, I know it probably won't make a difference, but I still recommend anyone else who is angry about this to do the same. It at least gives you some satisfaction in taking back a little bit of personal control from Google.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- smarx007 10y ago
  I think FF addons also need some more love this year. Was thinking of a low-hanging-fruit issue aggregator for FF plugins like this one https://github.com/spring-guides/issue-aggregator https://github.com/spring-guides/issue-aggregator. Would you be interested in using such an aggregated list of bugs?
jwtadvice 10y ago
I don't think I've ever personally clicked on a Google Ad - they appear to me to only a combination of spam ('unwanted ads') and tracking/surveillance implements. I don't own an Android Phone (any cellular phone, since the Snowden Documents disclosed mass domestic surveillance programmes). So I can't use AdNauseum. I do, however, run similar software on my laptop and I would have used this software or something similar to it were I to own such a device. One of the reasons - above and beyond GPS tracking databases and my information from cellular phones going into HUMINT and propaganda databases - is that the phones and tablets I've used haven't been sufficiently owned by me. Google/Alphabet's willingness to uninstall software on user's devices is an example of this: their terms of agreement lay out conditions equivalent to their partial ownership of your device, and your limited ability to own and control the device for yourself.

345 points by yuvadam 10y ago

Perhaps because it was costing them money and making their tracking data less valuable. Perhaps if AdNauseam stopped the clicking portion the ban would be lifted.

cqz 10y ago
Making their tracking data useless is kind of the point of the extension. Obviously it's well within Google's interests to stop people using it. I guess if you're privacy minded it's probably best not to use a browser made by a giant ad company.
- andybak 10y ago
  I'm not sure how I'd feel if something like this became widespread and I was paying Google for clicks. Well. I guess that's the point. But then surely it's fairly understandable for Google to try and stop them - at least on their own turf? Google doesn't fund Chrome out of a sense of altruism - they want to have control over those aspects of the web-browsing ecosystem that potentially threaten their bottom line. And here is that strategy behaving exactly as it should. You want the stuff Google has paid to build? You probably have to accept that "I want to automatically hide and click ads" falls under the banner of "maybe you should use a different browser then".
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > they want to have control over those aspects of the web-browsing ecosystem that potentially threaten their bottom line. That’s exactly what they can’t do, and where antitrust laws come in. Google has to run Chrome out of altruism, or not at all.
nix0n 10y ago
I think you're right, uBlock Origin is working fine for me on Chrome at the moment.
malka 10y ago
This is MY user agent, not google's. I should be able to install whatever the fuck add on I want on it. Removing the add on from computer where it was already installed is incredibly user hostile. So I installed Firefox and adNauseam on it. I was not a user before.
ashark 10y ago
I hope that means what they're doing is effective and this publicity leads to wider adoption, then. The current form of user-data-vacuuming advertising and the business models it enables are the worst things to happen to the Web certainly, and probably to consumer computer tech more generally. It can't die fast enough.

mtarnovan 10y ago

Wow, 'Do no evil' huh?

tyingq 10y ago
I assume AdNauseam's random clicking is viewed as click fraud[1] by Google. Then, I'm guessing click fraud falls under the "Interfering with Third-party Ads and Websites" section[2] of the developer policy. [1]https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/16737?hl=en https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/16737?hl=en [2]https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/program_policies https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/program_policies (ctrl-f, then search for "Interfering with Third-party Ads and Websites") Edit: Hmm, below is correct. The "single purpose" policy is pretty hard to understand, and the reason Google gave for banning it. The policy above would seem more applicable.
- NoGravitas 10y ago
  That's not the justification the store gave for banning it, though.
- mcintyre1994 10y ago
  A policy of not "Interfering with Apps, Third-party Ads, or Device Functionality" in the Chrome Store sounds like it'd outrule every adblocker. The description of that rule also doesn't seem to apply: "Ads associated with your app must not interfere with other apps, ads, or the operation of the device, including system or device buttons and ports." It's specifically under the ads section of the policy. I'm not sure the policy applies in any way to Chrome either: "...ensure that together we continue to deliver the world's most innovative and trusted apps to over a billion people through Google Play." EDIT: The link has been changed and now points to the equivalent Chrome Store policy. My other 2 points remain true though.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I was just trying to guess their underlying reason. I can see, however, a view that "not loading" an ad doesn't qualify as "interfering" with it...but clicking on it for the purpose of disruption is considered "interfering". Also, I updated the link to point at chrome extension policy vs app store policy. The wording is similar.

xwowsersx 10y ago

Can someone explain what the point of silently clicking the ads is? Why not just block them? Does clicking the ads somehow aid in blocking or is it a way of fighting back against perceived abuses by advertisers?

tetrep 10y ago
The idea is to mess with advertisers' metrics. If people using ad blockers are peaceful protesters, AdNauseam is trying to riot.
- tyingq 10y ago
  Assuming they aren't detected as fraudulent, it's messing with more than metrics. The advertisers, in many cases, are paying per click. Edit: Not making a judgement here, just clarifying that the extension is doing more than messing with metrics.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aldo_MX 10y ago
    The advertisers don't mind paying for disruptive, intrusive, battery-draining, bandwidth-consuming, rich-media advertisements, so I don't mind draining their wallets.
    - VikingCoder 10y ago
      You just said, "The sites I visit don't mind receiving money for disruptive, intrusive, battery-draining, bandwidth-consuming, rich-media advertisements, so I don't mind draining their wallets." If there's someone who makes content you like to see, why don't you mind draining their wallet?
      - Aldo_MX 10y ago
        If there's someone who makes content I like to see, I purchase their merchandising, books, courses, assist to their events, etc., that's pretty simple. Why support the middle man who just makes the Internet a worse place when you can directly support an author's efforts? The advertisement business model just exists to justify the existence of low quality content.

alexpoulsen 10y ago

No privacy/security/adblocking user should use Chrome; it's a browser made the company you block ads from and tracks you whether or not the ads are there. Use Firefox, Safari, open source chromium, MS Edge, or anything else, just not Chrome. Also a Safari extension would be very nice.

menegattig 10y ago

Few month ago we developed and launched an AI-based AdBlocker (called AdFilter) and also had several problems with Google Chrome Web Store. Almost every week they had a "strange reason" to remove our extension from the Google Chrome Web Store. We had more than 380,000 DAU (Daily Active Users) from 36 countries with all good feedbacks on Google Chrome Web Store, but even so, Google always tried to find a way to get us delisted and sometimes removed... they called it "an automated review process that is not performed by humans". Every time this happened we need to send several messages to all available email address to get our extension approved and listed again in 24-48 hours. After facing this kind of situation more than 12 times, we simply gave up and remembered that it's not worth trying to build a business (or App) on top 3rd party company, like Google or FB.

losteric 10y ago
It's possible to install Chrome extensions outside of the store: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...
- diggan 10y ago
  > Earlier this week, on Jan 1st 2017, we were informed by our users that Google had banned AdNauseam from its Chrome Web Store. We’ve since learned that Google now also disallows users from manually installing and updating AdNauseam, thus locking users out of their own saved data, all with no prior notice or warning.
  - losteric 10y ago
    I'm not sure why you're quoting that? I literally just installed the plugin. Google has blocked installing AdNauseam from the Chrome store and installing the .crx file manually. Manually installing the developer package is completely unhampered.
    - snowwolf 10y ago

iUsedToCode 10y ago

This is why i don't use Chrome. Enough of my life is in google's hands. I believe they are already too big. I wish for a more open smartphone ecosystem and better tools for privacy.

m-p-3 10y ago
I use Chrome, but I don't exclusively rely on it. I always have both Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox installed on my systems/devices.
- wildrhythms 10y ago
  Can I ask if there's a good way to keep bookmarks synced between Chrome and Firefox? I know about Xmarks[1] but I'm just curious if there's another way that doesn't involve storing my bookmarks on a third party. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/xmarks-sync/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/xmarks-sync/
  - j_s 10y ago
    You are looking to sync bookmarks through a server you host yourself? Any other option involves a 3rd party, no? If you don't care about sync / mobile then just use a local .html file. Maybe this could be Dropbox'd around but there's that 3rd party problem!
    - wildrhythms 10y ago
      >You are looking to sync bookmarks through a server you host yourself? Sure, just a way to keep bookmarks synced when I might switch systems/browsers without having to manually export-import them every time.

everyone 10y ago

Who uses Chrome anyway? .. Question: I'm not a web dev, Ive never heard of this. I currently use adblock plus and privacy badger. Does this do what they do? Would it be a good idea to install them all? If not which solution do you think is the most hardcore in terms of privacy. thanks!

iUsedToCode 10y ago
Consider using Ublock Origin, lightweight, more honest and well behaving adblocker.
pimlottc 10y ago
> Who uses Chrome anyway? Over 50% of all desktop users [0], or, in other words, hundreds of millions of people. 0: https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0 https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...
- ryandrake 10y ago
  GP should have asked "Who uses Chrome AND is privacy conscious enough to be interested in this?" Those demographics shouldn't really overlap much. It's like making a product for people who like hanging around in a casino but don't like gambling.
  - jstanley 10y ago
    I use Chromium because Firefox's performance is too terrible, but I consider myself privacy-conscious.
    - gog 10y ago
      Where do you get the binaries? Or do you build it yourself?
      - jstanley 10y ago

pricechild 10y ago

There's related discussion on this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13325507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13325507 Not only is it apparently banned from the store, but also it's being removed from existing user's machines, on top of not allowing new installs. Edit: Going to quote my thread from that discussion as this announcement confirms they were banned over the single use policy... > Other ad blockers "block ads" and "block annoying eu cookie notices". Should they be removed? > I just visited the Chrome store and chose the first extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/office-online/ndjp.. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/office-online/ndjp.... It makes word documents AND spreadsheets?! > Hopefully you can see where I'm going... whatever's written in the policy is difficult to enforce literally. Someone has to make the distinction based upon the intent of that policy. A person has to draw the line. If Google have made the decision based on that policy, well that's their decision. > Reading https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose (part 4) makes me thinking "disrupting ad networks" could be that single purpose. Then it'd cover blocking & clicking. Just like "Office Online"'s "edit office documents" covering both "word processing" and "spreadsheets".

FilterSweep 10y ago
Hey man, I think your discussion points finally reached the real reason why "single use policy" applies differently for Office Online than it does to AdNauseum. AdNauseam team are intelligent and they probably realize it as well. In their self-description: > AdNauseam, a not-for-profit, research-based privacy tool, hides and clicks every tracking ad that it identifies in order to resist the opaque collection, analysis and monetization of private user data, and to challenge the intrusive and unethical business model that currently dominates the web. Ital. gives you the justification Google could use to block the product. "Disrupting Ad Networks" is the single purpose, but while "Ad Blockers" are a simple nuisance to Ad Networks and 3rd party revenue streams, "Ad Obfuscators" poses a threat to affiliate marketers and resellers who may interact through Google's channels. (In my opinion.....) Is AdNauseum justified in their work? ABSOLUTELY YES. But there are other hands at play. This also explains why Google is working so hard to block updating or new installs of it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

AdmiralAsshat 10y ago

I find it interesting that this particular Adblocker is being removed, while countless others remain. I suspect that other adblockers like, say, ABP or UBO, are less damaging to the agent fingerprint than an adblocker that clicks everything.

Spoom 10y ago
AdNauseam silently clicks the ads as you mention, so they're actively messing with Google's ad statistics. If I was Google, I would consider it an attack too.
- m-p-3 10y ago
  Yup, basically an distributed attack on their ad networks. Hopefully they'll also release a Mozilla Firefox add-on.
  - kome 10y ago
    They have it: https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
- xigency 10y ago
  Then why doesn't Google find some terms or change their terms or policy that clearly indicates why they are taking down the extension? It doesn't make sense to mislead the extension developers by giving them a nonsense reason for taking it down. Obviously, they believe the extension is destructive. So, they should use that as their rationale in taking it down.
- jstanley 10y ago
  It is an attack on Google, but if they want people to perceive Chrome as benevolent, they must leave this extension alone. By blocking the extension (and, no less, actively removing it from places it was already installed!) they just reveal that the Chrome store exists primarily to serve their own interests and is not for the benefit of the user.
- fixermark 10y ago

nimbix 10y ago

"Company which makes its money from advertising bans automated click fraud extension from being used in its browser."

acobster 10y ago
Not that I'm really surprised by Google's action, but "fraud" is a pretty strong word for what's happening, and pretty disingenuous IMO. No one's pretending to be anyone they're not.
- nimbix 10y ago
  Click fraud is a standard industry term for robot initiated clicks, which this is a case of. What this extension generates are certainly not legitimate clicks form interested users, or even unintentional clicks that happen due to various reasons (some HN readers like to blame them on dark patterns, but they're really just of a consequence of the fact that ad tech is just not that great in general).
  - kylebenzle 10y ago
    No, it is not. It is an industry term for robot initiated clicks for the purpose of profiting, that is the "FRAUD" part, just clicking random ads is not defrauding any party to the benefit of another, it just wastes resources.
    - floweringlotus 10y ago
      Do you think it is fraud to order a pizza to be delivered to someone else's house, because you are a vegetarian and wish to destroy the business model of meat-based pizza? How about doing this to every pizza store you encounter that serves meat? You're not profiting..just wasting a business's resources by misrepresenting your identity and intentions.
      - spaceribs 10y ago

andrewclunn 10y ago

Hello Firefox and Opera. I'm suddenly in the market for a new browser.

mixedCase 10y ago
I moved the other day from Chromium to Firefox Developer Edition due to some bugs. It has substantially improved in responsiveness over the past few months, Chrome/Chromium really isn't worth the price of admission.
djsumdog 10y ago
I never switched from Firefox. It had more of the tools I needed and at the time, Chrome's plugins architecture didn't allow sidebars at all. I also hate how Google took pieces of WebKit and Gecko and smooshed them together into a closed browser (which they only opened up later). Granted WebKit was gobbled up from KHTML, but at least Apple expanded on it and contributed back, at least initially.

Spoom 10y ago

At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised? AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money. Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense. There is even a method to install it directly[1] which AFAIK Google has not blocked. Granted, if Google were not both running the browser and the ad network, these actions probably wouldn't have been taken. But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top. 1. https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...

NoGravitas 10y ago
According to TFA, they are also blocking manual installs and updates.
- Spoom 10y ago
  If true, that would be a bit more disappointing. Can someone verify? Edit: Keep in mind I'm referring to developer mode installation per the link above, not directly installing the extension package from the store or a file.
  - Artemis2 10y ago
    I tried earlier today in Chrome Canary in developer mode and after a short while the extension disabled itself. When I try to enable it back again the console on the Extensions page says "Unchecked runtime.lastError while running management.setEnabled: Extension kkendhmcacabobepidajpejenjinojhp cannot be modified by user."
    - malka 10y ago
      100% assholish on google side to disable side loading for a very specific extension. The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension.

jmcdiesel 10y ago

What point did we begin to feel entitled to do whatever we want in someone else's software? If someone wants to kick you out of there house for no reason, you leave their house. You're not paying to be there, you're not paying to publish there... you have no intrinsic "right" to be there... you were there as a privilege - when it disappears, for whatever reason, there is no reason other than a false sense of entitlement to whine about it...

tyingq 10y ago
>You're not paying to be there It's not a huge amount, but you do pay to be there. See https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/publish https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/publish "Before you publish your first app, you must pay a one-time $5 developer signup fee"
ebbv 10y ago
> there is no reason other than a false sense of entitlement to whine about it So the rest of us shouldn't be aware of what Google is doing and base our choice of browser on that? I agree Google, Apple, etc. are absolutely entitled to kick people from their stores for whatever reason they want. But, we should also be informed of this especially when it seems to be based on self interest rather than protecting their users.
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  The difference comes in the tone... When the tone is more accusatory than informative, it invites plenty of criticism...
jstanley 10y ago
If you act like you're running your house for the benefit of the public, don't be surprised if people get upset when you start throwing out people you don't like.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ben0x539 10y ago

square90 10y ago

The Firefox extension review turned this up: "If you have a YouTube channel (s) and your logged in to that channel it will get your channel suspended for Violation of TOU #4 Section H" [1] Has anyone else confirmed this behavior on YouTube? 1. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/reviews/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/rev...

GlickWick 10y ago
Of course this could happen. This plugin automates clicking ads on a page, which does directly violate exactly what that section of the TOU is saying.
- nimbix 10y ago
  The users of this extension have a clear case of the "I'm allowed to poke the dog with a stick, but the dog is not allowed to bite me" mentality, so it's a complete surprise to them when it happens.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    more like "I'm allowed to defend myself from the attacking dog by using the stick." I'm not surprised they want to take my stick away, but that doesn't make Google's actions any less shady.
    - strictnein 10y ago
      The dog, in this case, is protecting their property. They're not in your yard, you're in their yard. So get out of their yard if you don't like the dog.
      - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
        But the internet packets are sent to your computer, so it is your yard that the dog is throwing things at.

Pica_soO 10y ago

If Google where clever they would welcome this as creative destruction and search for a way to diversify there revenue stream mono-culture. But they cant, because they are the gold standard, and everything new will look like dirt besides the dairy cow that keeps the comfy live afloat. Thus google has become Microsoft, and Microsoft has become Google, the cycle is complete.

halflings 10y ago
So, you think Google simply does not want to "diversify there revenue stream", and haven't tried to do so? What about Android, DeepMind, self-driving cars, etc.?
- Pica_soO 10y ago
  All "hobbyist" projects, gunned down before they could be taken by the likes of elon-musk to the runway. For you shall not have other power-cores in a company, beside the one.
- scott_karana 10y ago
  You have the correlation and causation backwards. Google doesn't start side projects to make more money: they make more money (on ads) so they can have fun, unprofitable side projects.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

downandout 10y ago

It's pretty simple: this has to be wreaking havoc with Adsense - depleting ad budgets, artificially inflating CTRs, and giving website owners revenue they didn't earn. This extension also exposes website owners to unfair Adsense bans for generating high numbers of invalid clicks, which can cost them two months of revenue that is almost always withheld when Google bans a site. So by using this you could be costing someone (your favorite blogger etc.) their livelihood. If you are going to block ads, block them. Don't click on them.

siegecraft 10y ago
Were there really enough people using this to cause such an impact?
- downandout 10y ago
  I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a favorite site of even one AdNauseum user. Adsense is very sensitive to stuff like this, especially in higher CPC niches.
  - Fnoord 10y ago
    Why not? On the short term, you get more income from ad revenue. Who knows what the effect on the long term is going to be.
    - downandout 10y ago
      You would be banned - very fast. You would never actually receive the money since Adsense pays out on a two month delay. They are very good at identifying this type of activity and the webmaster is the one that pays the price.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        Well, if that’s true, within of months, half of websites will have to search for a new ad network, and we might get a chance at less intrusive ads.

NoGravitas 10y ago

It appears that AdNauseam is based on uBlock Origin. So giving the extra middle finger to advertisers does not mean giving up on first class ad blocking capabilities.

iopq 10y ago

Installed AdNauseam on Firefox as soon as I heard. Never heard of this extension before, now I'll use it!

deadcast 10y ago
Yeah I just installed it as well and it's fun seeing all of the content that gets clicked on. Searching on Google shows at least 15 ads clicked/blocked. No wonder they hate this extension!
- tux1968 10y ago
  I heard about it before, but wasn't really motivated to check it out. Just installed it in Firefox and it seems to operate as you'd expect. This might be an opportunity for Firefox to regain some market share.

snowwolf 10y ago

If the only reason Google have banned this from the Web Store is because it violates the Single Purpose Policy (https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose) - i.e. Blocking AND Clicking Ads, then an interesting test would be to split the extension in 2 - One extension to block all ads on the page, and one extension to click all ads on the page. And then see if they are then both accepted into the store. And as this is a fork of uBlock, you don't really need the first extension - Why don't they just develop an extension whose single purpose is to click all ads on a page and recommend users also install uBlock?

ComodoHacker 10y ago
Automated clicking on ads is a click fraud. It will never be accepted by Google.
- frenchy 10y ago
  Automate clicking on the ads by the website owner is click fraud. This isn't click fraud because the consumers never agreed to anything. Doesn't mean Google will accept it, obviously.

ComodoHacker 10y ago

Is there a saved version of AdNauseam Web Store page?

abhv 10y ago

By clicking on the ads automatically, it seems like Adnauseum actually supports the underlying website (which earns $$) while also performing the function of muBlock. It is currently the best of both worlds! I would like an AdNauseum type interface for video.

halflings 10y ago
A user that clicks on all ads they are shown will most likely be blacklisted as a bot (rightly so, as they are using an auto-clicking bot).
- ben0x539 10y ago
  If you're blacklisted as a bot, does Google stop serving you ads? :P
acdha 10y ago
> By clicking on the ads automatically, it seems like Adnauseum actually supports the underlying website (which earns $$) while also performing the function of muBlock That theory works until someone notices that the extra clicks aren't leading to anything else, complains about click fraud, and then the website is penalized with fines, account suspension, etc. That small site likely won't even have the resources to defense themselves effectively. There's also an interesting security question: do you really want to automatically click on the next zero-day deployed through an ad network?

keldaris 10y ago

Thanks, Google. I'd never heard of this extension before now and had often wondered in the past why no one had thought of this strategy to screw with online tracking and data collection. The free PR is great, and now AdNauseam has another new user. :)

colept 10y ago
Because Google is not "the man" in this scenario that you're sticking it to - it's the website owner whose content you're consuming. Google gets paid either way, and AdNauseam is pennies on their dollar. Webmaster however, depend on advertising revenue to keep publishing.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Google is not the one we're trying to "stick it to". They are far from the worst player in this space. Moreover, AdNauseam is not meant as a surgical strike against some player in particular, but as a carpet bombing of the whole ad scene. Which, IMO, totally deserves it, and the collateral damage dealt to some publishers is totally worth it.
  - colept 10y ago
    > collateral damage dealt to some publishers is totally worth it. Said a clown before the rodeo. The collateral damage is putting small independent publishers out of business and reinforcing monopolies in publishing. If you think tracking is going to be less pervasive by knocking down the little guys, you are sorely mistaken. > ‘We know your dark secrets. We know everything.’ - Steve Huffman from Reddit When all that's left is Reddit, Google, and Facebook - the collateral damage is the same thing you're trying to protect.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Monopolies in publishing seem to depend much more on ad revenue than small, independent publishers - who tend to utilize solutions like Parteon, fundraisers, donate buttons, referrals, sponsorship or just plain old self-hosting like in the good old days. There are plenty of alternative strategies available to players big and small, and the only thing I can see dying off is all the crap that the Internet drowned in since people started monetizing eyeballs.

vlunkr 10y ago

I just confirmed you can install this manually in Chromium still. https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission#manual-install https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...

j_s 10y ago
Yes. As stated elsewhere, this must be done each time the browser is restarted.

Artemis2 10y ago

Everytime a Google product makes it to the front page a Google engineer chimes in. No one today? https://hn.algolia.com/?query="i%20work%20at%20google"&dateRange=pastYear&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query="i%20work%20at%20google"&dateR...

inetsee 10y ago

I am curious. I have a question for all of the people who are in favor of AdNauseum. How would you react if a website provider was able to detect that you were using AdNauseum, and they blocked your access to their website? Edit: Expand the question to include other adblockers, not just AdNauseum.

Spivak 10y ago
I would first argue that being able to detect the presence of specific extension(s) is leaking too much information about the client to the website but that's probably unrelated. In principle there's no problem with sites that refuse users that don't view ads, I don't visit them, but I take no issue with them. However, if I request a remote resource from your site and you transfer it to me, you have no say in what my client chooses to do with it. Do you think it is unethical, immoral, or should be illegal to pay someone to clip the ads out of a free magazine before I read it?
disposablename 10y ago
Simple: I would stop using the site!
tylerscheuble 10y ago
I would disable AdNauseum for that website if I am unable to find a sufficient alternative.
ben0x539 10y ago
In general I'm okay with websites saying, "hey, if you block our ads, we don't want you using our site". I think only a few big sites are doing that so far, typically it's not the kind of site that I'd be sad over. If it was more prevalent, eg. if Google somehow managed to arrange for all sites serving Google ads to stop working if ads are blocked, that'd change the dynamic. Ultimately it's not gonna lead to me clicking on any more ads and then buying people's stuff, so I don't think it's in Google's interest, but it'd be interesting to see.
godshatter 10y ago
If the website was one I liked and actually wanted them to get revenue, I would white list them in the extension. I do this on rare occasions when I find sites I really like that object to ad blockers. Usually, though, I haven't been allowed to see their content so no harm done. I just go find something else to click on.

woah 10y ago

Why not make a Safari extension? Apple has little incentive to defend Google and Facebook's business models.

FT_intern 10y ago
because no one who would use the extension (aka tech savy people) would use Safari

__ddd__ 10y ago

As many have pointed out, Google could handle this in their end and avoided pissing off a small but well defined group of users/developers. My guess is that they decided it wasn't worthwhile because they have some privileged ideas about the direction web marketing will be taking in years to come. As user behavior tracking and analysis techniques become more refined, ads won't be needed as much as they are now. Instead, ads will be placed in high impact areas/sites, and the intel to decide who sees what ads will be acquired even from sites with no ads. Better UX, deeper knowledge of users, simpler monetization strategies for publishers. Sure, it will be even more invasive of privacy, but it won't _feel_ that way to most users. This will require heavier use of NLP and ML, two things Google devotes a whole lot of time and money for.

fixermark 10y ago

How confident are people that it's not actually functionally malware? If it's simulating clicks on every ad, what is its mechanism for protecting a user's client from ad-delivered malware that has now been activated without the user's knowledge?

xkxx 10y ago

On the brighter side, AdNauseam got a lot of publicity due to the ban and will get even more. AdNauseam got acknowledged by Google as being dangerous to their business model. This fact is very good, in my opinion. Personally, I first heard about this extension a month ago and didn't pay much attention to it then. Now I want to install it.

corv 10y ago

Haven't heard of AdNauseam before but I think I'm going to install it now.

bfrog 10y ago

After seeing this I installed AdNauseam. Google just gave them the best kind of marketing possible.

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago

Wikipedia summarizes fruad as "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right." The user does not unlawfully gain and the ad provider doesn't have a legal right that's being infringed on here. Some legal resource I found online says that in the US fraud requires: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. [1] Note that "material fact" here is a legally significant phrase, and implies a written agreement or some other mutually agreed to terms that establish the expectation - which never happened between you and the ad provider. No matter how you slice it the user of ad nauseum is not committing fraud. This misinformation needs to stop. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

VikingCoder 10y ago
"I am this browser, requesting this content on behalf of the user, who clicked on this ad." Walk me through this, okay?
- Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  I don't understand what you're asking for.
  - VikingCoder 10y ago
    The user is using an extension that, on their behalf, is directing the browser to request content, acting as if the user had clicked on an ad. (1) a false statement of a material fact The extension is telling the site, "I am this browser (user agent), requesting this content (what's behind this ad url), who clicked on this ad (calling the onClick handler of the element that has the ad." That's not true. The user did not click on the ad. (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue The user knows they did not click on the ad. (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim Everyone in this thread is saying it's to confuse the metrics, and some are saying it's to purposefully take money from the advertisers. (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement The vast majority of HTTP GETs to URLs that are only found as href on Ads are requested because the user clicked on the Ad in their browser. Can you name even ONE other time a browser follows the onClick event on an Ad? (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. Money. So, walk me through how this is not fraud?

jrw 10y ago

Hadn't heard of AdNauseam before. Immediately installed it for my primary browser Firefox.

smarx007 10y ago

I always thought Stallman's ideas were _too_ crazy. Until I struggled with Chrome for 10 minutes trying (and failing) to install this extension in a way that wouldn't bother me. And then I realised that Chrome is dictating what can I do on _my_ computer and what I can't. This year I will try to fix the rough edges in any FF plugins I use instead of switching back to Chrome. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computing.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computin...

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago

they posted link on homepage on how to install on Chrome bypassing webstore about 7 hours ago: https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...

Jordrok 10y ago

Well, I just spent the the past hour or so installing Firefox, setting it up with my preferences/imported bookmarks/extensions, and uninstalling Chrome. In the grand scheme of things, I know it probably won't make a difference, but I still recommend anyone else who is angry about this to do the same. It at least gives you some satisfaction in taking back a little bit of personal control from Google.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
smarx007 10y ago
I think FF addons also need some more love this year. Was thinking of a low-hanging-fruit issue aggregator for FF plugins like this one https://github.com/spring-guides/issue-aggregator https://github.com/spring-guides/issue-aggregator. Would you be interested in using such an aggregated list of bugs?

jwtadvice 10y ago

I don't think I've ever personally clicked on a Google Ad - they appear to me to only a combination of spam ('unwanted ads') and tracking/surveillance implements. I don't own an Android Phone (any cellular phone, since the Snowden Documents disclosed mass domestic surveillance programmes). So I can't use AdNauseum. I do, however, run similar software on my laptop and I would have used this software or something similar to it were I to own such a device. One of the reasons - above and beyond GPS tracking databases and my information from cellular phones going into HUMINT and propaganda databases - is that the phones and tablets I've used haven't been sufficiently owned by me. Google/Alphabet's willingness to uninstall software on user's devices is an example of this: their terms of agreement lay out conditions equivalent to their partial ownership of your device, and your limited ability to own and control the device for yourself.