Live data from Hacker News

AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

github.com

61–70 of 163 posts

Re: AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

#61

Something I don't understand: wouldn't clicking all the ads still help build tracking profiles of you? (except, inaccurate ones, which still carry the chance of harming you?) They seem to compare themselves to TrackMeNot, which Googles random things in the background to try to mess up Google's profile of you — but I always thought that sounded crazy, because what if it looks up stuff that gets you put on a list, or s…

TrackMeNot does allow opting in to a list of keywords[1] that have been monitored by the DHS[2]

[1] https://github.com/vtoubiana/TrackMeNot/blob/master/dhs_keyw...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/05/26/departme...

Re: AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

#62
The whole online ad industry is based on users honestly clicking on ads so that advertisers get some sort of feedback as to its effectiveness. If extensions are silently clicking on ads, it renders ad metrics and tracking completely irrelevant.

I love it.

Re: AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

#63

Fight against ads by giving the ad networks money and further incentivizing captcha and other tech to stop bots.

> incentivizing captcha and other tech to stop bots

At what place would this incentivize captchas? It can't be when you click on the ad, because users would just close the window.

Re: AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

#64
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do this more for ideaology reason. For some people (not me) ads are inherently bad, so it's okay to abuse advertiser. Just like for some people, copyright are inherently bad, so piracy is not just a way to save several bucks, but a moral duty.

People also commit terrorist acts and justify it as "ideological".

Are you just pointing out that sometimes justifications are wrong? Yeah, we know.

Re: AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

#65
>https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#how-does-adnause...

>AdNauseam 'clicks' Ads by issuing an HTTP request to the URL to which they lead. In current versions the is done via an XMLHttpRequest (or AJAX request) issued in a background process. This lightweight request signals a 'click' on the server responsible for the Ad, but does so without opening any additional windows or pages on your computer. Further it allows AdNauseam to safely receive and discard the resulting response data, rather than executing it in the browser, thus preventing a range of potential security problems (ransomware, rogue Javascript or Flash code, XSS-attacks, etc.) caused by malfunctioning or malicious Ads. Although it is completely safe, AdNauseam's clicking behaviour can be de-activated in the settings panel.

Isn't this easily detectable? XHRs are easily detectable through various headers, so it's trivial to filter out the fake traffic from this with a few lines of code. I'd expect any ad network worth their salt to implement this. Failing that, thanks to ad fraud there's a whole industry of bot/ad fraud detection firms using browser fingerprinting and behavioral analysis to detect fake ad clicks. I have no doubt that an extension that's "clicking" on every ad using XHR is going to get detected and filtered. I'm very skeptical using this extension will ever achieve its policy goals of fighting against adtech or whatever. You might as well attach a "DNT: 1" header to all your requests.

Re: AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

#66
post #56
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“click fraud”? That is very very far fetched. I’m just following links your website serves me. If you don’t like it you don’t have to serve your ads to me.

It's all fun and games until Google gets upset and locks you out of your gmail.

Well, don't use Gmail, or use a domain that you can move to any provider and keep a backup of you're email.

If you put yourself in a place where someone can take everything from you than it's a real risk that they might.

Re: AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

#68
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users/fork defending users by silently clicking ads I came here with the revised title assuming malicious intent from the fork. I now know thats not how it works. So my title rename is just a suggestion to further clarify the intent. hth

I don't understand all this fork talk

AdNauseun source code is forked from uBlock?

Re: AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

#69
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users/fork defending users by silently clicking ads I came here with the revised title assuming malicious intent from the fork. I now know thats not how it works. So my title rename is just a suggestion to further clarify the intent. hth

I don't understand all this fork talk

Just wait till they get on about spoons.

Re: AdNauseam: uBlock Origin fork silently clicking ads on behalf of users

#70
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do this more for ideaology reason. For some people (not me) ads are inherently bad, so it's okay to abuse advertiser. Just like for some people, copyright are inherently bad, so piracy is not just a way to save several bucks, but a moral duty.

People also commit terrorist acts and justify it as "ideological".

I think using the cultural stigma of a "terrorist act" to make an analogy like that isn't very productive.

It's as effective as saying "People also do bad things for ideological reasons", simply stating as fact that violating copyright is bad ignoring any of the nuance that was provided.

Post reply on HN