8 ms·

AdNauseam: Browser extension to fight back against tracking by ad networks

207 points by abc-xyz 7y ago

0xADEADBEE 7y ago
I used this for some time and it's great; built atop ublock origin and does exactly what it purports to. The only downside is that it is used by such a comparatively small market-share that it's harder to blend in, but I imagine modern browser fingerprinting negates this concern anyway. Also it's (tellingly) banned from the Chrome store last I used Chrome, and you had to install it via a zip file. There is (or at least was) a user-hostile nag each time you start Chrome (or Chromium) about allowing an unidentified extension but I guess that's now moot if Chrome now doesn't permit sanctioned ad-blockers.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  They should promote the hell more out of the fact that it's uBO underneath. For a long time, I didn't install AdNauseam simply because I trusted uBO more, and didn't want to have two ad-blockers in a single browser.
  - 0xADEADBEE 7y ago
    I agree with this - it's there (annoyingly, phrased exactly the same way I wrote my comment but I swear I didn't know and I haven't been on that page in months!) but they're not exactly leading with it. uBlock Origin has a strong brand and it's a bit myopic not to leverage that in a more prominent way. Still, I'm glad it's getting noticed and I'm sure their install base went up a fair bit from this thread alone!
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I'm on a fresh desktop setup and just installed it, so it's +1, and when I go back to my usual workspace, it'll be +3.
danielcampos93 7y ago
Best part is it tells you how much ad spend you have caused. It’s crazy how quickly the number reaches 4 figures.
- abc-xyz 7y ago
  Before anyone feels bad about this: the extension will, by default, not click on non-tracking ads. I've used it for over a year (also on $XXXX estimated cost figures on 3 different devices) with several thousands of ads clicked. My ad vault contains everything from porn, electronics, job boards, ads in languages I do not understand, gambling, gaming, and all sorts of crap I have zero interest in. I pretty much never see ads while surfing the net, and when I do then it's the ads that would also slip through uBlock Origin and other ad blocking extensions.
  - pizzazzaro 7y ago
    When an ad slips through? You might wanna update/augment those filter lists. That was the best thing about some of the addons to the old adblock plus addon - you could keep your own list, and the average user was entirely unaware of the extent that they were doing so.
    - Yetanfou 7y ago
      Adding new blocking rules to uBlock (et al) is part and parcel of how to use these extensions, I don't see any difference here compared to adblock+. If you see something you wish to avoid you either right-click it and select 'block element' or you launch the element picker from the toolbar or through a key combination. Use ctrl-click in the picker to create more generic rules on specific class or ID names.
      - locknumber110 7y ago
        uBO-style element pickers are a brilliantly user-friendly alternative to manually writing filters. Every content-filter extension on every browser should have one. Even my 80-year-old grandfather is now able to excise ads that slip through the usual filters with precision.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
chaz6 7y ago
Apart from actual malware, this is the only browser extension I know of to have been blacklisted by Google. If you want to use it in Chrome you have to jump through hoops. For the record, I approve of AdNauseam. I have every right to browse the internet how I choose. My computer, my control. I am firmly against the corporization of the internet.
- dgzl 7y ago
  Hell, I'm against advertising.
- amelius 7y ago
  > If you want to use it in Chrome you have to jump through hoops. Why would a potential AdNauseam user even use Chrome?
  - sanxiyn 7y ago
    Maybe their internal website is Chrome-only and broken on Firefox. Such things exist. (I actually have such personal experience.)
  - teh_klev 7y ago
    Multiple and fully isolated user profiles - hugely important for the work I do. I know Firefox has containers, but they're not really feature complete compared to Chrome's, and the UI experience leaves a lot to be desired, there's just to many friction points. edit: forgot to also mention, I'm also aware FF has profiles as well (about:profiles) but the implementation has too many speedbumps. As I mentioned in another post on HN, the profile manager needs to be an upfront and first class UI citizen, something hidden away with a fairly poor UIX.
    - duiker101 7y ago
      Vivaldi also has profiles, added recently! (Uses Chromium)
      - 7y ago
bad_user 7y ago
This extension apparently simulates clicks on blocked ads. I'm not comfortable doing that. First of all I don't see the point. I don't click on ads, so there is no profile that advertisers can extract from that. Having an extension that simulates clicks would only link to my supposed profile shit that I don't want, plus in my experience from when I worked in the ads industry, the user profile often gets compiled from better signals, like actual searches, apps used, websites visited, articles being read, or data freely provided by the user himself, like age, sex or location. Clicks on ads are misleading because the ads themselves are misleading. It's not a good signal unless it leads to a conversion and a click is just part of the funnel and not a conversion. In fact the only really useful signal is that the user clicks on ads, in general, or in other words you're inviting publishers to serve you more ads. Also this "fighting back" attitude is not very constructive. If you hate the direction of this industry, consider paying for shit that you consume, instead of pushing for extensions that will inevitably get banned (due to this being essentially fraud) and that are pushing more and more publishers towards native apps and towards DRM, because the open web is a risky platform due to these extensions. --- For protecting my privacy, besides Firefox's built-in trackers blocking and uBlock Origin, I also use and recommend Privacy Badger ... this is a neat extension that automatically learns about trackers that follow you around the web; it can brake some websites, but it's the best at bypassing protections against ad/tracker blocking.
- 0xADEADBEE 7y ago
  A couple of quick points: - Your ad profile will be built based on pages you visit as you indeed note, not just things that you click. Any noise you can introduce surely has to be a win for obfuscation? Would be interested in your thoughts here because you have more experience than I do! - I'm not certain that paying for content makes any difference from a data mining perspective. Loading a NYT article causes uBlock Origin to deny 14 requests; I don't currently have a subscription but I imagine those assets are still loaded even if I'm signed in (with much clearer markers towards my identity!) - Fighting back is a fine way to effect change. It's clearly working or Google wouldn't be banning this extension from their store or limiting their API. I'm very comfortable with this so it's interesting to speak with someone who isn't. If adblocking is on the rise, I wonder what the next step will be towards monetizing content? Micropayments didn't take off (perhaps unsurprisingly) and subscription models seem to not have the return that people had hoped. There's huge amounts of money on the table but a lot of very smart people don't seem to have hit upon anything yet!
antpls 7y ago
- Blocking ads had the nice argument of being more "green" because of less internet requests, less CPU and data usage. - How do I make sure this extension will not download and run a javascript exploit from fake ads ? Security, ecology, business threat : they are valid arguments to Google for banning it
spork12 7y ago
Why do people have such a problem with advertising on the internet? A lot of useful websites could not afford to exist without putting up some paid advertisements. Imo, Apps like uBlock should focus on blocking scams and phishing sites.
have_faith 7y ago
Not sure why simply blocking the ads isn't a better signal than trying to send mixed messages that they can just filter out. Ad blocking already is fighting back, is more environmentally friendly, and doesn't expose you to anything.
- mhuffman 7y ago
  > trying to send mixed messages that they can just filter out. How does this work? Remove clicks from people that click many ads? Doubtful! It is noteworthy that Google doesn't bitch too much about AdBlocking in the past, but lost their shit at AdDauseam![1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/05/adnauseam_expelled_from_chrome_web_store/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/05/adnauseam_expelled_...
angel_j 7y ago
I like the data-breaking approach to anti-tracking and ads. I wonder if it would be more effective to fuck with cookies, like randomly scrambling your cookies with other browsers'.
hawski 7y ago
In previous discussion about AdNauseam one user familiar with the ad industry said [0]: > I worked in adtech a few years ago, and AdNauseam-style click fraud is a relatively trivial to detect and ignore. It does nothing, and adtech companies don't care about your hate of online advertising the least because that's what brings in the cash. Then other user clarified [1]: > The most usual technique is to setup click baits/traps, once you click on a trap link you (= IP or UID via cookie) are added to an ignore list, where all your actions are not invoiced to advertisers. Simple and works, With all that in mind I came up with an idea at a time [2]: > What would happen if there would be a popular extension that would share UID cookies between all its users? Now, the question is: is it worthwhile to do something like this? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19279384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19279384 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19279452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19279452 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19281078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19281078
- yeppie 7y ago
  Claiming it's trivial to detect feels like a weak attempt to try to discourage people from using the extension because it's anything but, and that it's something ad networks fear will become mainstream like regular adblockers. The click baits/traps would, in terms of cookies, be countered by the Cookie AutoDelete extension and whenever you browsed in private mode. As for blacklisting IPs, that seems very risky since an IP is often shared among many users (and it's always a risk people use same device, e.g. a MacBook), and it would continue to result in an increasing amount of legitimate users being wrongfully blacklisted as the extension's user base grew. Moreover, assuming these techniques are actually used, then it's safe to assume that at least a few ads would be clicked before they detected they were malicious clicks. And this would be the case whenever a user used a new IP with no cookie present. I'm definitely not convinced it's something ad networks can reasonably detect, especially considering it's important that the ads are served as fast as possible.

207 points by abc-xyz 7y ago

I used this for some time and it's great; built atop ublock origin and does exactly what it purports to. The only downside is that it is used by such a comparatively small market-share that it's harder to blend in, but I imagine modern browser fingerprinting negates this concern anyway. Also it's (tellingly) banned from the Chrome store last I used Chrome, and you had to install it via a zip file. There is (or at least was) a user-hostile nag each time you start Chrome (or Chromium) about allowing an unidentified extension but I guess that's now moot if Chrome now doesn't permit sanctioned ad-blockers.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
They should promote the hell more out of the fact that it's uBO underneath. For a long time, I didn't install AdNauseam simply because I trusted uBO more, and didn't want to have two ad-blockers in a single browser.
- 0xADEADBEE 7y ago
  I agree with this - it's there (annoyingly, phrased exactly the same way I wrote my comment but I swear I didn't know and I haven't been on that page in months!) but they're not exactly leading with it. uBlock Origin has a strong brand and it's a bit myopic not to leverage that in a more prominent way. Still, I'm glad it's getting noticed and I'm sure their install base went up a fair bit from this thread alone!
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I'm on a fresh desktop setup and just installed it, so it's +1, and when I go back to my usual workspace, it'll be +3.

danielcampos93 7y ago

Best part is it tells you how much ad spend you have caused. It’s crazy how quickly the number reaches 4 figures.

abc-xyz 7y ago
Before anyone feels bad about this: the extension will, by default, not click on non-tracking ads. I've used it for over a year (also on $XXXX estimated cost figures on 3 different devices) with several thousands of ads clicked. My ad vault contains everything from porn, electronics, job boards, ads in languages I do not understand, gambling, gaming, and all sorts of crap I have zero interest in. I pretty much never see ads while surfing the net, and when I do then it's the ads that would also slip through uBlock Origin and other ad blocking extensions.
- pizzazzaro 7y ago
  When an ad slips through? You might wanna update/augment those filter lists. That was the best thing about some of the addons to the old adblock plus addon - you could keep your own list, and the average user was entirely unaware of the extent that they were doing so.
  - Yetanfou 7y ago
    Adding new blocking rules to uBlock (et al) is part and parcel of how to use these extensions, I don't see any difference here compared to adblock+. If you see something you wish to avoid you either right-click it and select 'block element' or you launch the element picker from the toolbar or through a key combination. Use ctrl-click in the picker to create more generic rules on specific class or ID names.
    - locknumber110 7y ago
      uBO-style element pickers are a brilliantly user-friendly alternative to manually writing filters. Every content-filter extension on every browser should have one. Even my 80-year-old grandfather is now able to excise ads that slip through the usual filters with precision.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

chaz6 7y ago

Apart from actual malware, this is the only browser extension I know of to have been blacklisted by Google. If you want to use it in Chrome you have to jump through hoops. For the record, I approve of AdNauseam. I have every right to browse the internet how I choose. My computer, my control. I am firmly against the corporization of the internet.

dgzl 7y ago
Hell, I'm against advertising.
amelius 7y ago
> If you want to use it in Chrome you have to jump through hoops. Why would a potential AdNauseam user even use Chrome?
- sanxiyn 7y ago
  Maybe their internal website is Chrome-only and broken on Firefox. Such things exist. (I actually have such personal experience.)
- teh_klev 7y ago
  Multiple and fully isolated user profiles - hugely important for the work I do. I know Firefox has containers, but they're not really feature complete compared to Chrome's, and the UI experience leaves a lot to be desired, there's just to many friction points. edit: forgot to also mention, I'm also aware FF has profiles as well (about:profiles) but the implementation has too many speedbumps. As I mentioned in another post on HN, the profile manager needs to be an upfront and first class UI citizen, something hidden away with a fairly poor UIX.
  - duiker101 7y ago
    Vivaldi also has profiles, added recently! (Uses Chromium)
    - 7y ago

bad_user 7y ago

This extension apparently simulates clicks on blocked ads. I'm not comfortable doing that. First of all I don't see the point. I don't click on ads, so there is no profile that advertisers can extract from that. Having an extension that simulates clicks would only link to my supposed profile shit that I don't want, plus in my experience from when I worked in the ads industry, the user profile often gets compiled from better signals, like actual searches, apps used, websites visited, articles being read, or data freely provided by the user himself, like age, sex or location. Clicks on ads are misleading because the ads themselves are misleading. It's not a good signal unless it leads to a conversion and a click is just part of the funnel and not a conversion. In fact the only really useful signal is that the user clicks on ads, in general, or in other words you're inviting publishers to serve you more ads. Also this "fighting back" attitude is not very constructive. If you hate the direction of this industry, consider paying for shit that you consume, instead of pushing for extensions that will inevitably get banned (due to this being essentially fraud) and that are pushing more and more publishers towards native apps and towards DRM, because the open web is a risky platform due to these extensions. --- For protecting my privacy, besides Firefox's built-in trackers blocking and uBlock Origin, I also use and recommend Privacy Badger ... this is a neat extension that automatically learns about trackers that follow you around the web; it can brake some websites, but it's the best at bypassing protections against ad/tracker blocking.

0xADEADBEE 7y ago
A couple of quick points: - Your ad profile will be built based on pages you visit as you indeed note, not just things that you click. Any noise you can introduce surely has to be a win for obfuscation? Would be interested in your thoughts here because you have more experience than I do! - I'm not certain that paying for content makes any difference from a data mining perspective. Loading a NYT article causes uBlock Origin to deny 14 requests; I don't currently have a subscription but I imagine those assets are still loaded even if I'm signed in (with much clearer markers towards my identity!) - Fighting back is a fine way to effect change. It's clearly working or Google wouldn't be banning this extension from their store or limiting their API. I'm very comfortable with this so it's interesting to speak with someone who isn't. If adblocking is on the rise, I wonder what the next step will be towards monetizing content? Micropayments didn't take off (perhaps unsurprisingly) and subscription models seem to not have the return that people had hoped. There's huge amounts of money on the table but a lot of very smart people don't seem to have hit upon anything yet!

antpls 7y ago

- Blocking ads had the nice argument of being more "green" because of less internet requests, less CPU and data usage. - How do I make sure this extension will not download and run a javascript exploit from fake ads ? Security, ecology, business threat : they are valid arguments to Google for banning it

spork12 7y ago

Why do people have such a problem with advertising on the internet? A lot of useful websites could not afford to exist without putting up some paid advertisements. Imo, Apps like uBlock should focus on blocking scams and phishing sites.

have_faith 7y ago

Not sure why simply blocking the ads isn't a better signal than trying to send mixed messages that they can just filter out. Ad blocking already is fighting back, is more environmentally friendly, and doesn't expose you to anything.

mhuffman 7y ago
> trying to send mixed messages that they can just filter out. How does this work? Remove clicks from people that click many ads? Doubtful! It is noteworthy that Google doesn't bitch too much about AdBlocking in the past, but lost their shit at AdDauseam![1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/05/adnauseam_expelled_from_chrome_web_store/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/05/adnauseam_expelled_...

angel_j 7y ago

I like the data-breaking approach to anti-tracking and ads. I wonder if it would be more effective to fuck with cookies, like randomly scrambling your cookies with other browsers'.

hawski 7y ago

In previous discussion about AdNauseam one user familiar with the ad industry said [0]: > I worked in adtech a few years ago, and AdNauseam-style click fraud is a relatively trivial to detect and ignore. It does nothing, and adtech companies don't care about your hate of online advertising the least because that's what brings in the cash. Then other user clarified [1]: > The most usual technique is to setup click baits/traps, once you click on a trap link you (= IP or UID via cookie) are added to an ignore list, where all your actions are not invoiced to advertisers. Simple and works, With all that in mind I came up with an idea at a time [2]: > What would happen if there would be a popular extension that would share UID cookies between all its users? Now, the question is: is it worthwhile to do something like this? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19279384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19279384 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19279452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19279452 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19281078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19281078

yeppie 7y ago
Claiming it's trivial to detect feels like a weak attempt to try to discourage people from using the extension because it's anything but, and that it's something ad networks fear will become mainstream like regular adblockers. The click baits/traps would, in terms of cookies, be countered by the Cookie AutoDelete extension and whenever you browsed in private mode. As for blacklisting IPs, that seems very risky since an IP is often shared among many users (and it's always a risk people use same device, e.g. a MacBook), and it would continue to result in an increasing amount of legitimate users being wrongfully blacklisted as the extension's user base grew. Moreover, assuming these techniques are actually used, then it's safe to assume that at least a few ads would be clicked before they detected they were malicious clicks. And this would be the case whenever a user used a new IP with no cookie present. I'm definitely not convinced it's something ad networks can reasonably detect, especially considering it's important that the ads are served as fast as possible.