adnauseam.io
i don't know how many people actually install this extension, but it is specifically designed to clicks ads so you don't have to :)
i don't know how many people actually install this extension, but it is specifically designed to clicks ads so you don't have to :)
Similarly, if you work in a bank, I recommend not spontaneously shouting about the evils of capital while lighting the til on fire.
The entire point of the extension is to attack the incentive mechanism that makes ad networks work. This tends to mix poorly with trying to turn a profit from those same networks.
It is based off uBlock Origin. Just use uBlock Origin.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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!'
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/ - 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.
So unless you have some proof to prove your point, I'm going to assume you're making this up
I also have custom CSS/JS rules to block those infuriating chat box popups on various websites and thought it might be fun to not only block them but also run a chat bot on them in the background for every chat box that pops up unsolicited. Waste their time and maybe they will learn very quickly that unsolicited chat popups are the most annoying UX ever.
(To be clear, I love chat UIs for customer support -- but not unsolicited "Can I help you?" sales chat boxes that pop up and cover part of the screen before you have even had a chance to understand the product.)
I block ads because:
- They are often bloated with CPU-intensive JavaScript that makes my web experience less than smooth. I demand that scrolling and other UI actions be imperceptibly fast, and 90% of the time I find it's ads that are the culprit in making them perceptibly slow.
- They are often loaded with tracking and fingerprinting spyware. I blocked Facebook ads as soon as they started showing me stuff that I had searched for on eBay and Amazon. Like, WTF. Big nope. I was fine with the ads, but not that level of tracking and sharing user data across companies.
As such, I block ads in protest of the above. But if I establish a mechanism that clicks the ads in the background, they don't have to know whether it is me or a robot that clicked them -- as far as they are concerned my residence is a black box, and there are some intelligent beings inside this black box that click the ads, some of those intelligent beings are made of silicon and some are made of carbon, and they don't need to know the chemistry of what being caused the click. At some point in the far future of civilization and humanity, I expect biological chemistry to be abstracted out, and laws in place to not discriminate on the chemistry of a being, and economies will have to be rebuilt around that assumption. I'm just living that future now, and as far as the big companies are concerned, they can start thinking about new monetization models now that better align the collective incentives of my blacxbox with theirs.
Traditional ads don't influence my purchasing behavior much either. I'm not their typical consumer. So it wouldn't have made a difference. My purchasing decisions are based more on a combination of first principles and friend/coworker recommendations.
Now there's the issue of how ads might drive revenue, and that's how the internet is kept free. Sure. But I think there are other ways to drive that than the current iteration of ads. Social-media-ify it, gamify it, make it fun, and I'll actually want to interact with the ads. Make me have to play a game to get a $1 Starbucks discount, and I might play -- and go to Starbucks! You see, carbon-based lifeforms love coffee, and love games, so the possibility of a discount on that might actually make me want to play the game.
But none of this tracking-spyware-CPU-bloat-while-I'm-trying-to-do-something-else please. Plain <a href="foo"><img src="blah"></a>, no megabyte-sized images, and no cross-site sharing of user data? If they can agree to that, I'll stop blocking.
How my system renders code, or renders a webpage, and which instructions it chooses to run or not run, are upto me, as the owner of the system. Nobody else has the right to control over my hardware. They can only make suggestions, but the final decision about which lines of code are allowed to run are mine. No transfer of ownership occurs.
To use a non-physical example, how is this any different than signing an agreement with a lawyer to give you legal advice, receiving said legal advice, and then refusing to pay?
No, for 95% of the sites I read, I don't need to accept any terms of service. Hell, even the ones I do, often don't mention anything about ad blocking. I can't see anything directly prohibiting ad blocking here on the Facebook ToS, for example:
https://www.facebook.com/terms.php
> how is this any different than signing an agreement with a lawyer
ToS and a contract with a lawyer are very different things. It is not generally a crime to violate a ToS, but rather, merely a breech of agreement, and they can refuse service in return. If I violate a ToS, they can block me from using the site, and that's about the most they can do, unless I intentionally harmed the company (e.g. hacked other user data or compromised their servers).
(In the particular case of Facebook, it would also probably not be in their interest to block me, because I post a lot of original content to the platform that causes other users to spend more time on Facebook, and my presence on the platform is highly likely a net positive for them cash-wise.)
I operate by morality, but my risk tolerance is bound by legality. For example, for any human rights issue X, will I speak out for X in a place that has free speech but not yet legalized X? Absolutely. Will I speak out for X in a place that I might get a $100 fine? Probably. Will I speak out for X in a place that I might get jailed or beheaded? Probably not.
In this case though I don't consider it immoral to violate certain ToS terms, especially when they track and sell user data and don't offer a clear opt-in/out option to that, and perhaps even doubly on the sites that I actively contribute useful content to the platform in good faith, and the legal risk is extremely low.
Are there any downsides to using this?
If it was really fraud it would be implied to be illegal. It's not a nice thing to do but it's not illegal.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes...
Just look it up - it's basically a cloud-based pi-hole and it's wonderful.