4 ms·

Honorable mention goes to Adnauseam (https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/). It is an extension for Firefox and Chrome, which clicks on almost every ad.

by knob 9y ago

Honorable mention goes to Adnauseam (https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/). It is an extension for Firefox and Chrome, which clicks on almost every ad. Hopefully, costing advertisers money. The interesting part is: Google removed Adnauseum from their Chrome Extensions. If you anyway install it, every Chrome restart requires that you re-enable the extension. I like the extension... the advertisers are costing me money by consuming bandwidth, and slowing down everything... well I will try to hit them where it hurts.

ReverseCold 9y ago
Vivaldi (chrome, but it assumes you know what you're doing, and no Google integration) doesn't disable it after a restart.
chc 9y ago
There's a pretty significant difference there, though. They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at, while you're costing them money just to be malicious. If you don't want to look at the content, just don't. If you want to look at the content but don't want to see ads, use an ad blocker. Punishing them for trying to stay afloat while giving you something you want is just pathological behavior.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  You can rationalize it however you want, but there's only two possibilities. 1. People like you, who say "but I can just ignore ads" are right, and ad companies are about to go out of the business. 2. People who are convinced that ads don't affect them are wrong. It doesn't seem like ad companies are struggling to me? So the logical conclusion is that ignoring ads doesn't work. Now on the retaliation. Anyone trying to expose me to ads is aggressively trying to compromise my decision making process. Since they started, I see nothing wrong with defending myself by increasing their costs. >They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at The real cost is that your decisions are compromised.

by knob 9y ago

ReverseCold 9y ago

Vivaldi (chrome, but it assumes you know what you're doing, and no Google integration) doesn't disable it after a restart.

chc 9y ago

There's a pretty significant difference there, though. They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at, while you're costing them money just to be malicious. If you don't want to look at the content, just don't. If you want to look at the content but don't want to see ads, use an ad blocker. Punishing them for trying to stay afloat while giving you something you want is just pathological behavior.

literallycancer 9y ago
You can rationalize it however you want, but there's only two possibilities. 1. People like you, who say "but I can just ignore ads" are right, and ad companies are about to go out of the business. 2. People who are convinced that ads don't affect them are wrong. It doesn't seem like ad companies are struggling to me? So the logical conclusion is that ignoring ads doesn't work. Now on the retaliation. Anyone trying to expose me to ads is aggressively trying to compromise my decision making process. Since they started, I see nothing wrong with defending myself by increasing their costs. >They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at The real cost is that your decisions are compromised.