181–190 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension. Seriously. I'd figured they'd filter these "clicks" out easily server-side and didn't bother to install this thing, but this ban has hinted otherwise. I'll be installing it everywhere I can now.
Why such "clicks" would be easy to filter on the server side? What distinguishes them so clearly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's supposed to mess up the stats and inject uncertainty into ad analysis. They are trying to bring down the price of ads on the internet, thus making them unprofitable. I hope they succeed.
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.
Perhaps the reason for this is that virtual goods have often been for free, because of ads (?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? I'm honestly not sure how you could think otherwise. This is a clickbot just like any other.
Who is the user defrauding? If they're not the site running the ads, they have no business relationship with the ad company, so the ad company really can't reasonably demand of them to only click certain ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it is not. It is an industry term for robot initiated clicks for the purpose of profiting, that is the "FRAUD" part, just clicking random ads is not defrauding any party to the benefit of another, it just wastes resources.
Do you think it is fraud to order a pizza to be delivered to someone else's house, because you are a vegetarian and wish to destroy the business model of meat-based pizza? How about doing this to every pizza store you encounter that serves meat? You're not profiting..just wasting a business's resources by misrepresenting your identity and intentions.
I am curious. I have a question for all of the people who are in favor of AdNauseum. How would you react if a website provider was able to detect that you were using AdNauseum, and they blocked your access to their website? Edit: Expand the question to include other adblockers, not just AdNauseum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Chrome, but I don't exclusively rely on it. I always have both Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox installed on my systems/devices.
Can I ask if there's a good way to keep bookmarks synced between Chrome and Firefox? I know about Xmarks[1] but I'm just curious if there's another way that doesn't involve storing my bookmarks on a third party. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/xmarks-sync/
If you don't care about sync / mobile then just use a local .html file. Maybe this could be Dropbox'd around but there's that 3rd party problem!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I am curious. I have a question for all of the people who are in favor of AdNauseum. How would you react if a website provider was able to detect that you were using AdNauseum, and they blocked your access to their website? Edit: Expand the question to include other adblockers, not just AdNauseum.
If it's simulating clicks on every ad, what is its mechanism for protecting a user's client from ad-delivered malware that has now been activated without the user's knowledge?