Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 163 posts

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

#101

Post by memefrog »

brightlancer wrote: post #26
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What economic model would you like to supplant the one which is currently serving a whole load of websites to us all for free?

Personally, I like pay-per-use and subscription models. And I'm not entirely opposed to advertising; TV and radio have been ad supported for generations, but we've now added surveillance which is unacceptable. (The ads themselves are also more intrusive, but that's my secondary concern.)

TV ads are okay because you can mute it. Radio ads are obnoxious, always louder than the actual problems.

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

#102

Post by tempestn »

gruez wrote: post #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 i…

I'm not sure what headers you're referring to, but it would be easy for a browser extension to open urls Ina way that would be indistinguishable from a user click. That said, it should be fairly straightforward for ad networks to detect large numbers of clicks from a given device and treat it as bot traffic.

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

#103

Post by curionymous »

cabaalis wrote: post #36
nvy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the purpose to cause ad networks to lower fee payments due to rampant click fraud and thus to destroy the business model?

I think one should be careful using the term "click fraud" in this context. Someone who installs this extension doesn't in my mind qualify to be defrauding anyone. There is no contract in place, it isn't against the law to express interest in a product, and there's no technical controls being breached illegally as the browser is just sending a request to a server.

And this is why Google is speculating to integrate WEI on Google Chrome and business owners and advertisers are going to gladly welcomeand implement it and pressure web developers to do the same on their websites. Just because there's no direct defrauding going on, doesn't mean ad networks aren't noticing and accounting for it.

Apple already has shipped something similar. https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-att...

"hihi, my browser clicks ads in the background, I'm fighting Big Tech so hard rn"

Google implements WEI on chrome and normal users who just want to block ads can't use their extensions anymore.

"Google Bad! I want to block my ads and cause you financial loss too"

"NO" - Google

So, mission accomplished?

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

#105

Post by qwertox »

neilv wrote: post #20

As someone who's been interested in tracker defeating since that became a thing around 25 years ago, I'm just a little concerned that something like this AdNauseum -- if ever adopted significantly -- could invite blowback that also hits more conventional tracker blocking, or other current liberties. Not making certain HTTP requests seems to be protected right now. However, click fraud, with which this might be confla…

I really share your concerns and take your side, but one could also ask what harm is being done here, other than messing with the stats by letting code perform an action a human could do.

Something along these lines: We're not asking to get these clickable ads, so if they're sent to us, we might as well just have a script click them.

It's doubtful if this is really click fraud, since we're in no contract relationship to the ad platform, unlike the one who uses the platform. Click fraud could be defined as commercially interested parties generating false clicks for profit, either the ad platform or the competition creating these clicks to charge for clicks which never happened or the clients for whichever reason.

But from my point of view I'd rather not do any of this as a tracker blocker, you never know if then a capable lawyer meets a bad judge and suddenly uBlock Origin will be (absurdly) ruled as an illegal piece of software.

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

#106

Post by tcfhgj »

CodeSgt wrote: post #82
coldtea wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One that has us pay for websites would be far better. Including services like Gmail and such. We would be paying customers, not eyeballs for sale, and only websites deemed worthy of that level of loyalty would survive. Any websites that prefer it could still be free then, but the costs to host them would have to be paid by their owner (like most personal or business websites today), not sponsored by ads.

You’re speaking from the position of someone clearly privileged enough to afford all the services you’d like to continue using. There are vast swaths of t people for whom an additional monthly subscription to watch YouTube, have access to email, read the news, browse social media, etc just isn’t financially tenable. Especially in the year 2023 where technology and internet access is so crucial to survival, I’d prefer…

Well, keep the costs at the level that ads make instead of requiring to overpay 100x.

That's probably less than you pay more for your phone for more traffic and power to display ads.

More interestingly, where does all the money for ads (this for Google and the service showing ads) come from? It's paid by all consumers already.

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

#107

Post by djbusby »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #90
imglorp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> force even more invasive user identity requirements or device attestation I think those are both coming. All the major forces are aligned against users: governments, content holders, advertisers, police, and authoritarians everywhere. It's inevitable unless we take the power back.

What does taking back the power look like?

Fire and guillotines?

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

#108

Post by midoridensha »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #14
xwdv wrote: post #8

Of all the ad blockers, AdNauseam is the one that is feared the most. If everybody used it, it would kill the industry.

What economic model would you like to supplant the one which is currently serving a whole load of websites to us all for free?

Wikipedia has been working just fine for decades now, without serving malware-laden ads to users. It's not our job to help trillion-dollar companies fix their business models.

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

#109

Post by curionymous »

xwdv wrote: post #8

Of all the ad blockers, AdNauseam is the one that is feared the most. If everybody used it, it would kill the industry.

> If everybody used it, it would kill the industry.

Fingerprinting and click fraud detection says NO!

Seriously, are we in 2000s where ad platforms couldn't detect malicious patterns and fake clicks and I could join a ad click group on facebook to make 100s of dollars?

Even in a case of everyone using an adblock, do you think they're not going to serve ads through first party domains making it very difficult to block? There are already ad companies who do this through their CDNs. why are the supposed users of "Hacker News" site oblivious to these things?

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

#110

Post by nvy »

aeyes wrote: post #38
nvy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't personally run this extension (because I've read that the fraudulent clicks are easy to detect) but supposing that the clicks from this extension were both pervasive and indistinguishable from real clicks, it would seem to me that that would cause ROI to asymptotically approach zero which would result in the collapse of ad networks as a viable business model.

Unfortunately it just leads to more ads. 20 years ago we had way fewer ads on typical sites, today you can hardly find the text in between the ads on your average news site.

Thanks to uBlock Origin, I don't see any ads on any sites. It's great.
Post reply on HN