AdNauseam is a uBlock fork that goes further: it actively attacks marketers by auto-clicking every ad before blocking
AdNauseam - Clicking Ads So You Don't Have To
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!
IMO, this is a bit much.
It's one thing to block ads, it's another thing to essentially participate in an ad fraud scheme. If this simply hurt Google, I would have no issues (they are corrupt criminals, an American oligarchic institution), but you also risking harming independent sites that have done nothing wrong.
Why is advertising ok, but any response in opposition of it, is not?
This is an excessive approach that risks collateral damage to 3rd parties who are not involved.
I have no issues with blocking ads (internet is unusable without ublock origin + Pihole), but actually simulating clicks is IMO not the right approach.
Collateral damage to advertisers? Sounds like a feature, not a bug.
I still don't get why you think it's not the right approach. Seems perfectly fine to me.
Because this will cause problems for independent website operators.
Blocking ads is one thing, but this risks fucking up their digital advertising accounts.
Isn't that the point, to fuck up digital advertising accounts so the data is unreliable and can't be used?
this will cause problems for independent website operators.
This may seem to be a legit criticism at first, but AdNauseam allows ethical ads so anyone using good, safe stuff should not get affected. There is an entire section in AN's documentation about not clicking on this specific ad group.
As for the vast majority of the rest who don't use ethical, non-tracking ads: let 'em have it! ⚔ AdNauseam users (and users of any similar tools; I don't know what else is out there) must first hold a fundamental view that the tracking world is extremely violating, of which ads are a subset. Long gone are the glory days when ads were funny, appealing, and well-made, and didn't track people; ad companies gather data on us and if they get hacked, that info flies out in the open: all without our knowledge or true consent. Is that something you're fine with? Additionally, more and more ads are proving to be entire scams, or otherwise shams that did not fully deliver, that have harmed consumers who legitimately click through.
The long-term goal is to teach those who use malicious ads that this is an unacceptable, unsustainable practice and that they need to market in better ways if they wanna keep doing this (again, going back to the pre-Internet glory days when Coca-Cola, etc. ran awesome TV ads and when there was no or nearly no account-tracking—or just any semblance of it).
Good to hear.
No of course I am not down with tracking BS.
But I do use some smaller niche sites (for some of them I have subs or patron) and I would not want them to be hit (no clue what ad providers they use).
You incorrectly use the term ad fraud, which addresses advertisers themselves automating clicks on their own links to generate fake income. There is nothing wrong with people-with-no-corporate-interest who click.
Remember, advertising is jist a new word they made to wash over the ick with its original name, propaganda. I'd rather not participate in any propaganda.
To each their own. I'm in your boat too, I think.