6 ms·

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

• 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.
    • ffpip 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 ... I'm curious. Is it just your way of mocking me? Just wanted to know. > You have not defended this claim I do not have any proof of account banning, but I have been completely blocked by Google recaptcha when adnauseam is installed because I looked like a bot. I have been blocked twice. > There are number of reasons one might use an adblocker, right? Every reason (mobile data consumption, privacy, and page speed) can be achieved through uBlock origin. The only 'feature' adnauseam has over uBO is the automatic clicking. > just because someone can use a tool in a stupid way doesn't mean any use of the tool is stupid The problem is not that people can use this in a stupid way. People are using this in a stupid way. They set it to full click through rate and feel proud of standing up against the advertising mafia and are like 'Oh look at me, I'm faking my interests. I'm fooling Google and Facebook!!! So clever!'
      • h0p3 6y ago
        > I'm curious. Is it just your way of mocking me? Just wanted to know. No. I'm not mocking you. I am correcting you though (on a number of issues at this point). While I'm putting on a clinic here, I'm not trying to have fun at your expense. I'm quite serious. Your argument is not sound, and I'm trying to help you fix it (and your discourse), homie. Please pay attention. If you really are curious and want to know: https://philosopher.life/ https://philosopher.life/ - I thought you might be inspired to think about my history given both how I thought about yours (and looking through your history, I see you've failed to learn from promoting your thesis more than once) and because you incorrectly presumed you knew what I didn't recognize (surely you will take the opportunity to gain perspective and context in coming to understand who you are speaking with). In any case, even this conversation will be finding its way into my wiki. > I do not have any proof of account banning, but I have been completely blocked by Google recaptcha when adnauseam is installed because I looked like a bot. I have been blocked twice. Okay, you'll agree you are retracting one of your original claims then, right? (Normally, it's polite to concede where you've lost in the argument. That's part of arguing in [[good]] [[faith]].) > Every reason (mobile data consumption, privacy, and page speed) can be achieved through uBlock origin. The only 'feature' adnauseam has over uBO is the automatic clicking. Obviously, I argued that the automatic clicking is a reason to use it in at least some cases. uBlock Origin does not cover every use case for dealing with ads. You forgot to mention one of the primary reasons I gave: it prevents the display of ads. Now, look at the exact words you wrote in your argument: "If it contacts the adserver, what's the point of an adblocker?" So, are you agreeing that your counterpoint is nullified here, right? I demonstrated to you that there is still a reasonable point to using an adblocker that still contacts an adserver. That's at least two claims you've trotted out that turned out to be unjustified. Don't you think a little humility on your part is in order here, my friend? Consider the possibility that you are wrong, please. We all make mistakes. Also, since you continue to utter falsehoods as though they count as support for your thesis: that isn't the only additional feature that AdNauseam provides, but I'll agree it is far and away the primary one. Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that the feature is conceptually and always stupid: the burden of proof is on you here. I've already given you the counterexample. Lastly, don't get me wrong: I'm a huge fan of uBlock Origin. When in doubt, that is what I recommend. There are people to whom I recommend AdNauseam though. There's a time and a place for the tool. > The problem is not that people can use this in a stupid way. People are using this in a stupid way. They set it to full click through rate and feel proud of standing up against the advertising mafia and are like 'Oh look at me, I'm faking my interests. I'm fooling Google and Facebook!!! So clever!' Hrm. Look at your logic again. Here's a substitution to show you why the argument doesn't have the validity you hope: "The problem is not that people can use [a motorized vehicle] in a stupid way. People //are// using [motorized vehicles] in a stupid way." Note how my counterpoint clarifies how just because some people use a tool, be it a motorized vehicle or AdNauseam, in a way that is stupid doesn't mean that all uses of the tool are stupid. Using a motorized vehicle is not stupid in at least some cases, and the same is true of AdNauseam. Your thesis is overcommitted (try stating it differently). Perhaps you might try to argue about how the average use of the tool is harmful, but you've not given that argument either. I'm prepared to take you to task there too, of course. Note that you're ignoring multiple arguments I've made here. C'mon dude, do your due diligence, go ahead and walk through it line by line, charitably, please (just like I did for you). You might find your argument is substantially weaker when you actually try to address what I've said instead of sweeping it under the rug and repeating yourself. Let us assume for the sake of argument that using "full click through rate" is stupid (and, problematically, you've not established even that, and I've already given you a reason that it isn't necessarily stupid). There is at least one person who doesn't use the "full click through rate" for the sake of costing advertisers money, and this counts as a non-stupid and non-trivially valuable function that uBlock Origin does not provide (note that this wasn't the only reason I gave for the value of false clickthroughs). Thus, even if I granted that "full click through rate" use was stupid (and I obviously didn't), your thesis does not stand. There is a counterexample. You continue to offer an ad hominem attack on a strawmanned user, as though they represent all possible users and uses of this tool. Preference falsification is a weak aspect of the tool, and you're ignoring the strength of it. Have the integrity to look at the other reasons I've shown you, please. You might still want to argue that the reasons I've given you are stupid, but you've conveniently ignored addressing them instead. So far, at best, your argument is really against some users of the tool rather than the tool itself. Note, also, how using the tool stupidly (or even just ignorantly) to some degree does not imply it's stupid to use the tool. You need to provide a reason for us to think the former implies the latter, and you haven't. It feels like you've had more trouble with the tool than most people (maybe you should take other people's anecdotal evidence into account if you expect them to take yours into account). You may find it useful to at least attempt to reason out loud about how AdNauseam may function as both a protester's tool and a proof-of-concept educational object.