If the only reason Google have banned this from the Web Store is because it violates the Single Purpose Policy ( https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose ) - i.e. Blocking AND Clicking Ads, then an interesting test would be to split the extension in 2 - One extension to block all ads on the page, and one extension to click all ads on the page. And then see if they are then both accepted into the store.…
Automated clicking on ads is a click fraud. It will never be accepted by Google.
At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised? AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money . Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense. There is even a method to install it directly[1] whi…
People should still be giving Google shit for decisions like that, even if they're not surprised.
Why does Google deserve the shit for stopping people from taking money from them? I wouldn't think to give a department store shit for pressing charges against someone who smashed up a bunch of merchandise, whether or not the act was politically motivated.
I find it a bit harsh to be so hostile towards online ads. After all, it's has been a significant source of income for innovative companies or services that couldn't exist otherwise, because users are notoriously reluctant to pay for virtual goods. Yes, tracking and overly intrusive fullpage popups are real issues, but not all ads are inherently evil.
I can't name a single online service that is supported by ads and that I couldn't live without. >not all ads are inherently evil. All advertising is manipulation. Advertisers are bad and should feel bad.
By clicking on the ads automatically, it seems like Adnauseum actually supports the underlying website (which earns $$) while also performing the function of muBlock. It is currently the best of both worlds! I would like an AdNauseum type interface for video.
A user that clicks on all ads they are shown will most likely be blacklisted as a bot (rightly so, as they are using an auto-clicking bot).
If true, that would be a bit more disappointing. Can someone verify? Edit: Keep in mind I'm referring to developer mode installation per the link above, not directly installing the extension package from the store or a file.
I tried earlier today in Chrome Canary in developer mode and after a short while the extension disabled itself. When I try to enable it back again the console on the Extensions page says "Unchecked runtime.lastError while running management.setEnabled: Extension kkendhmcacabobepidajpejenjinojhp cannot be modified by user."
100% assholish on google side to disable side loading for a very specific extension.
The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension.
It's pretty simple: this has to be wreaking havoc with Adsense - depleting ad budgets, artificially inflating CTRs, and giving website owners revenue they didn't earn. This extension also exposes website owners to unfair Adsense bans for generating high numbers of invalid clicks, which can cost them two months of revenue that is almost always withheld when Google bans a site. So by using this you could be costing som…
How can the Adsense distinguish whether it is AdNauseum clicking or the human clicking?
They probably can't, since it's an extension and thus uses the user's browser, IP, cookies etc (Adsense does use mouse tracking and other techniques that will likely flag these clicks as suspect, requiring additional analysis). Therein lies the problem. It appears to them as if someone is going and clicking on every ad, or is using an automated headless browser to click on ads. That can easily get you banned. Google doesn't care about who is doing it, they only know that it is happening on your site, and as a result will treat your site as a threat to the Adsense network.
Few month ago we developed and launched an AI-based AdBlocker (called AdFilter) and also had several problems with Google Chrome Web Store. Almost every week they had a "strange reason" to remove our extension from the Google Chrome Web Store. We had more than 380,000 DAU (Daily Active Users) from 36 countries with all good feedbacks on Google Chrome Web Store, but even so, Google always tried to find a way to get us…
I'm surprised people still use Chrome and not Chromium. Perhaps a few devs in your situation could improve the Chromium installation flow for Windows, etc.
Google doesn't have much incentive to make it easy, but third parties (like Debian) do, and do a lot of the heavy lifting on an ongoing basis.
A policy of not "Interfering with Apps, Third-party Ads, or Device Functionality" in the Chrome Store sounds like it'd outrule every adblocker. The description of that rule also doesn't seem to apply: "Ads associated with your app must not interfere with other apps, ads, or the operation of the device, including system or device buttons and ports." It's specifically under the ads section of the policy. I'm not sure t…
I was just trying to guess their underlying reason. I can see, however, a view that "not loading" an ad doesn't qualify as "interfering" with it...but clicking on it for the purpose of disruption is considered "interfering". Also, I updated the link to point at chrome extension policy vs app store policy. The wording is similar.
You're right that the wording is similar for the chrome extension policy. The section about interfering with ads is still under "Ads in Chrome Apps & Extensions" and the wording for the description is "Ads associated with your app or extension may not interfere with any ads on a third-party website or application.".
It's still clearly referring only to ads that are part of an extension, and AdNauseam obviously doesn't have any so it can't be the reason.
I ctrl+f'd ads to see what else they say, it's almost all in that section that doesn't apply but one thing that came up was "Impersonation or Deceptive Behavior" under Content Policies which contains the wording " Products or the ads they contain also must not mimic functionality or warnings from a user's operating system or browser". I wonder if that could be argued to apply - mimicking click functionality?
Thanks, Google. I'd never heard of this extension before now and had often wondered in the past why no one had thought of this strategy to screw with online tracking and data collection. The free PR is great, and now AdNauseam has another new user. :)
If Google where clever they would welcome this as creative destruction and search for a way to diversify there revenue stream mono-culture. But they cant, because they are the gold standard, and everything new will look like dirt besides the dairy cow that keeps the comfy live afloat. Thus google has become Microsoft, and Microsoft has become Google, the cycle is complete.
So, you think Google simply does not want to "diversify there revenue stream", and haven't tried to do so?
What about Android, DeepMind, self-driving cars, etc.?