4 ms·

That is a stupid idea and will get your accounts and IP banned from Google and Cloudflare. Use it yourself if you want, do not encourage others to use it. It i

by ffpip 6y ago

That is a stupid idea and will get your accounts and IP banned from Google and Cloudflare. Use it yourself if you want, do not encourage others to use it. It is based off uBlock Origin. Just use uBlock Origin.

ValueNull 6y ago
I’ve used AdNauseum for close to a year with no issues, it seems to be pretty good about simulating realistic clicks.
- ffpip 6y ago
  Okay, use it yourself. But do not encourage others to use it. It is adfraud and most people set it to full click through rate.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    What is adfraud?
    - monadic2 6y ago
      Ad fraud is when you scheme to get clicks on your own site to defraud the ad network that would pay you for the space you sold them. It is not relevant here unless you're using the extension on your own site.
    - ffpip 6y ago
      Because Google calculates clicks as results, people are encouraged to click the ads, meaning news sites earn more money if clicks increase, and the advertiser has to pay more money to Google if clicks increase.
h0p3 6y ago
I'll challenge your claim that it's a stupid idea, if you really want to speak carefully about it together. Your prescription to not prescribe using it requires some justification. The best way to use the tool is to have it click between rarely and sometimes. Anti-tracking tools may allow you to dial it up as well.
- ffpip 6y ago
  Okay. > The best way to use the tool is to have it click between rarely and sometimes What you don't realize is most of the users are dumb and set it to maximum click through rate, because they think it is some form of achievement. Going against the advertising mafia, fooling Google, etc. To load the ads you need to click on, it has to contact the adserver. If it contacts the adserver, what's the point of an adblocker? Also, faking stuff (here, you are faking your interests by clicking random ads) for privacy reasons is good in only very few situations. The best way to remain private is to not give any info at all, instead of faking it. Faking stuff should be the secondary choice.
  - h0p3 6y ago
    Hello. My name is [[h0p3]], and [[I aim|IA2DYJ]] to be a friend and an ally. I have looked through your history, and I can see it is my honor to meet you. Thank you for agreeing to speak with me. I admire your fervor and candor, nomad, and I can see that we have quite a bit in common (for example, I despise AMP with a passion, and you seem passionate about the topic too). I'm probably not as skilled with [[computers|Computing]] and prescription as you are, so go easy on me. Of course, I'm making it easier on myself by waiting too. Time has passed, and there are fewer people watching. The pressures are lower here now. Let us wrestle in dialectics openly and wisely together. We can also take our discussion off-site if you would be more comfortable. > What you don't realize... Hrm. Most people require more time and effort to figure out what I don't realize, including on this matter. I [[hope]] that we will one day know each [[other]] much better. Your thesis is that using AdNauseam (presumably any use) is stupid and (because it?) will get one's accounts banned with Google and Cloudflare. You have not defended this claim (or these claims, if you meant them as disconnected propositions). There are cases in which using AdNauseam is not stupid, and it is not inevitable that using it will get your accounts banned with these corporations. I'll agree (from practice) that its use can cause service problems for some people, but even that can be remedied (at least for now). > most of the users are dumb and set it to maximum click through rate, because they think it is some form of achievement. Going against the advertising mafia, fooling Google, etc. I don't see why I should think most current users behave in that fashion, but perhaps you have evidence you can show me (I've not looked). I'll agree that most prospective users are ignorant, though that doesn't mean they have to be: they have a choice. Surely you would agree: just because someone can use a tool in a stupid way doesn't mean any use of the tool is stupid. Encouraging people to understand and use their tools wisely seems reasonable. There is a path on which this tool can be used and developed wisely. Even if all it did was bring attention and experience to the problems in this sphere, it might be worth using in ways that we might otherwise deem "incorrect." Should we discuss the merits of monkey-wrenching digital advertisement industries? Are you claiming this tool doesn't present a problem for Google's business model? Let me grant that this is an arms race, one that our adversaries are winning, and one that they will likely win. There is something to be achieved here though, and this tool does achieve something, however small. I will also agree there are much bigger fish to fry than this in the political problem of the continued centralization [[power]]. > To load the ads you need to click on, it has to contact the adserver. If it contacts the adserver, what's the point of an adblocker? There are number of reasons one might use an adblocker, right? Performance is one such reason. On my [[phone|monster-14]]'s 4G connection, my throughput is so slow that I can feel the difference between having ads and not. At home, I have a strong internet connection and a sufficiently fast [[computer|monster-16]] such that I often can't feel a sufficient difference. I use adblockers on both, but it sometimes serves an extra purpose on my phone. We can consider [[privacy]] to be another reason, and an extremely complex one, no doubt. I also consider the advertising industry to be immoral, but even if it weren't, I find ads (and an internet driven by ads) slow down my ability to find what is [[salient]]. Depending on what you mean, perhaps you and I will need to discuss the concept and practical concerns of "adfraud." Adblocking simplifies and improves the experience of acquiring knowledge and building relationships with [[others]] over digital mediums, and it enables us to take back some semblance of control of our [[political autonomy|Justice]]. An adblocker that still contacted the adserver (which will perhaps ultimately have to be done to bypass restrictions in this arms race) but eliminated the display of the content in my browser is still incredibly useful to me in a large number of contexts. Of course, our attention spans are at stake. Let us consider the spectacle together wisely. > Also, faking stuff (here, you are faking your interests by clicking random ads) for privacy reasons is good in only very few situations. The best way to remain private is to not give any info at all, instead of faking it. Faking stuff should be the secondary choice. I'll agree that adding polluting noise, in some cases, may disrupt their ability to model us to some [[dok]]. Attacking ad companies effectively enough may also provide some disincentives for them to attempt to model our private lives (though I think that is limited). It may be worth it even if it only raised the cost of online advertising. Among many methods, [[ML|Aispondence]] may eventually make this untenable, and the overwhelming effectiveness of fingerprinting is exceptionally problematic. Thus, I will also agree that this not the most important user-rights tool, not by a long shot! It still costs them something though. There are privacy trade-offs to be had here, and this is a low-hanging fruit method. Even in steganography, where part of privacy (or even anonymity) may require masquerading as a normal-looking user, we'd want to have some imitation clicks. My suggestion is that AdNauseam is barely even an alpha concept. There is still an arms race to consider here. Continued use and development of AdNauseam doesn't have to be stupid.
mStreamTeam 6y ago
I've used ad nauseum for years without a problem. So unless you have some proof to prove your point, I'm going to assume you're making this up

by ffpip 6y ago

ValueNull 6y ago

I’ve used AdNauseum for close to a year with no issues, it seems to be pretty good about simulating realistic clicks.

ffpip 6y ago
Okay, use it yourself. But do not encourage others to use it. It is adfraud and most people set it to full click through rate.
- Balgair 6y ago
  What is adfraud?
  - monadic2 6y ago
    Ad fraud is when you scheme to get clicks on your own site to defraud the ad network that would pay you for the space you sold them. It is not relevant here unless you're using the extension on your own site.
  - ffpip 6y ago
    Because Google calculates clicks as results, people are encouraged to click the ads, meaning news sites earn more money if clicks increase, and the advertiser has to pay more money to Google if clicks increase.

h0p3 6y ago

I'll challenge your claim that it's a stupid idea, if you really want to speak carefully about it together. Your prescription to not prescribe using it requires some justification. The best way to use the tool is to have it click between rarely and sometimes. Anti-tracking tools may allow you to dial it up as well.

ffpip 6y ago
Okay. > The best way to use the tool is to have it click between rarely and sometimes What you don't realize is most of the users are dumb and set it to maximum click through rate, because they think it is some form of achievement. Going against the advertising mafia, fooling Google, etc. To load the ads you need to click on, it has to contact the adserver. If it contacts the adserver, what's the point of an adblocker? Also, faking stuff (here, you are faking your interests by clicking random ads) for privacy reasons is good in only very few situations. The best way to remain private is to not give any info at all, instead of faking it. Faking stuff should be the secondary choice.
- h0p3 6y ago
  Hello. My name is [[h0p3]], and [[I aim|IA2DYJ]] to be a friend and an ally. I have looked through your history, and I can see it is my honor to meet you. Thank you for agreeing to speak with me. I admire your fervor and candor, nomad, and I can see that we have quite a bit in common (for example, I despise AMP with a passion, and you seem passionate about the topic too). I'm probably not as skilled with [[computers|Computing]] and prescription as you are, so go easy on me. Of course, I'm making it easier on myself by waiting too. Time has passed, and there are fewer people watching. The pressures are lower here now. Let us wrestle in dialectics openly and wisely together. We can also take our discussion off-site if you would be more comfortable. > What you don't realize... Hrm. Most people require more time and effort to figure out what I don't realize, including on this matter. I [[hope]] that we will one day know each [[other]] much better. Your thesis is that using AdNauseam (presumably any use) is stupid and (because it?) will get one's accounts banned with Google and Cloudflare. You have not defended this claim (or these claims, if you meant them as disconnected propositions). There are cases in which using AdNauseam is not stupid, and it is not inevitable that using it will get your accounts banned with these corporations. I'll agree (from practice) that its use can cause service problems for some people, but even that can be remedied (at least for now). > most of the users are dumb and set it to maximum click through rate, because they think it is some form of achievement. Going against the advertising mafia, fooling Google, etc. I don't see why I should think most current users behave in that fashion, but perhaps you have evidence you can show me (I've not looked). I'll agree that most prospective users are ignorant, though that doesn't mean they have to be: they have a choice. Surely you would agree: just because someone can use a tool in a stupid way doesn't mean any use of the tool is stupid. Encouraging people to understand and use their tools wisely seems reasonable. There is a path on which this tool can be used and developed wisely. Even if all it did was bring attention and experience to the problems in this sphere, it might be worth using in ways that we might otherwise deem "incorrect." Should we discuss the merits of monkey-wrenching digital advertisement industries? Are you claiming this tool doesn't present a problem for Google's business model? Let me grant that this is an arms race, one that our adversaries are winning, and one that they will likely win. There is something to be achieved here though, and this tool does achieve something, however small. I will also agree there are much bigger fish to fry than this in the political problem of the continued centralization [[power]]. > To load the ads you need to click on, it has to contact the adserver. If it contacts the adserver, what's the point of an adblocker? There are number of reasons one might use an adblocker, right? Performance is one such reason. On my [[phone|monster-14]]'s 4G connection, my throughput is so slow that I can feel the difference between having ads and not. At home, I have a strong internet connection and a sufficiently fast [[computer|monster-16]] such that I often can't feel a sufficient difference. I use adblockers on both, but it sometimes serves an extra purpose on my phone. We can consider [[privacy]] to be another reason, and an extremely complex one, no doubt. I also consider the advertising industry to be immoral, but even if it weren't, I find ads (and an internet driven by ads) slow down my ability to find what is [[salient]]. Depending on what you mean, perhaps you and I will need to discuss the concept and practical concerns of "adfraud." Adblocking simplifies and improves the experience of acquiring knowledge and building relationships with [[others]] over digital mediums, and it enables us to take back some semblance of control of our [[political autonomy|Justice]]. An adblocker that still contacted the adserver (which will perhaps ultimately have to be done to bypass restrictions in this arms race) but eliminated the display of the content in my browser is still incredibly useful to me in a large number of contexts. Of course, our attention spans are at stake. Let us consider the spectacle together wisely. > Also, faking stuff (here, you are faking your interests by clicking random ads) for privacy reasons is good in only very few situations. The best way to remain private is to not give any info at all, instead of faking it. Faking stuff should be the secondary choice. I'll agree that adding polluting noise, in some cases, may disrupt their ability to model us to some [[dok]]. Attacking ad companies effectively enough may also provide some disincentives for them to attempt to model our private lives (though I think that is limited). It may be worth it even if it only raised the cost of online advertising. Among many methods, [[ML|Aispondence]] may eventually make this untenable, and the overwhelming effectiveness of fingerprinting is exceptionally problematic. Thus, I will also agree that this not the most important user-rights tool, not by a long shot! It still costs them something though. There are privacy trade-offs to be had here, and this is a low-hanging fruit method. Even in steganography, where part of privacy (or even anonymity) may require masquerading as a normal-looking user, we'd want to have some imitation clicks. My suggestion is that AdNauseam is barely even an alpha concept. There is still an arms race to consider here. Continued use and development of AdNauseam doesn't have to be stupid.

mStreamTeam 6y ago

I've used ad nauseum for years without a problem. So unless you have some proof to prove your point, I'm going to assume you're making this up