this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
854 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

69158 readers
3020 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It garbles advertisers' data as a result, but you must disable uBlock Origin to run it; they can't work simultaneously. I recently moved to it and, so far, am never looking back!

(page 4) 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 135 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

You know this is the good shit because when it first came out a few years back google was running a huge disinformation campaign against it. You'd search for "adnauseum" in google and the first result would be an article from some weird advertising company calling is "insecure" and "malware" without any actual argumentation behind those claims, while no other search engine returned that article (I lost the screenshots, so yall are just gonna have to take my word for it). They also delisted it from the chrome store for not discernible reason. They were afraid.

But nowadays I'm willing to bet that they figured out how to detect adnauseum's fake clicks and filtering it out. Stuff like that needs a talented development team to keep it up to date.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 102 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I always liked using this on the premise of privacy-through-obfuscation. If the powers that be must get information from me, then i'd prefer to give them garbage information.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 92 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Google has put a lot of effort into detecting and blocking stuff like this. They call it "click fraud", if you want to look it up.

It'll just mean they start ignoring clicks from you.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Throw in a dash of track-me-not (https://www.trackmenot.io/) and maybe they'll start ignoring your search queries too! Worst case my actual searches are so buried in the bs deciding what to market would be easier from my screen-name.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 74 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That, I guess, it’s the whole point. Stopping being tracked 🙂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

if enough people start doing it might be effective

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Can't tell if 4/1 gag or not! Brilliant!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Why can't uBlock Origin and this thing work at the same time?

[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

because it's a modified uBlock Origin, so it's like running two ad blocking plugins at once, which isn't recommended. and if uBO blocks an ad first, AdNauseam won't be able to detect it and click on it.

anyway, I remember reading a long time ago how that approach isn't going to harm ad companies anyway, because [technical reasons that I don't remember at all].

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a bit redundant to run both at the same time, considering they both practically do the same thing and one is built off of the other.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Some ads have used browser exploits to infect visitors in the past. So this is a very, very bad idea, if it actually is implemented in a way that is hard to filter for ad networks.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So the way I understand this to work, it's 100% safe from the type of attack you're describing.

You are clicking the link (asking the advertiser for the data) but then never actually fetching it.

So you can never get the malicious payload to be infected.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Interesting, was wondering about this. This would also "help" the websites with more ad income right?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

if thats true, brb setting up a website and a bot farm

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

Haha I imagine they need at least unique ip addresses to count. Now I wonder if for clicks to count you need to properly click through and load the target website with the same "browser fingerprint".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This would just give money to the advertisers.

[–] [email protected] 110 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

This transfers money from the advertiser to the advertising agency, without creating a sale for the advertiser. This devalues the services of the agency.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 141 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Couple of issues I'm wondering about...

First, wouldn't clicking on everything just make you easier to track?

Second, how much bandwidth would all this use?

[–] [email protected] 172 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)
  1. not in this way
  2. not enough to matter

the way it works is sending an HTTP request that registers as a "click" to the advertiser (thus costing them money), but then doesn't actually let the browser download any content and fetch the webpage, basically pi-holes the destination site and any attached tracking cookies. Combined with the fact that it does this to every ad, it would basically poison any click tracking.

edit: pedants

and before I get any more of you, this is just what I remember reading about adnauseam, do not take it as gospel, go look at AdNauseam's FAQ.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, I can't find an answer whether the "click" is behind some obfuscation, or if the "click every ad" is the obfuscation step itself by attempting to poison the data. The latter may work but yes, may actually increase tracking. Wish that answer wasn't so hard to find on their site.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Also wouldn't this be directing a ton of money to google? (or I guess any other ad provider)

[–] [email protected] 58 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The advertisers are paying for the opportunity either way. Clicks cost them more money than just displaying the ad. Useless clicks cost them money for nothing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 weeks ago

No, because it devalues their click through, as no sales will result from those clicks.

It's kinda like printing money, there's more of it, but the overall value hasn't increased.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›