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!
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.
Has the same limitations as uBlock Origin with Manifest v3 and won't work in Chrome.
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.
Exactly. You can't completely avoid being tracked but you can ensure that your profile is just noise without any value to advertisers
And lots of it.
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.
That, I guess, it’s the whole point. Stopping being tracked 🙂
This feels like reverse psychology on a little kid.
"That's it, I'm not tracking you anymore! >:("
"Oooh nooo, what have I done! Oh how much I would wish to be tracked :("
"No, you won't convince me to change my mind >:("
"Oh well, guess I'll have to live without being tracked, what a shame that is."
if enough people start doing it might be effective
Not sure how true it was, but there was a YouTuber claiming that their videos were getting entirely demonetized because too many of their viewers had Ad blockers enabled. So even though 75% of people were seeing ads on the video, Google was keeping that ad revenue, withholding it all from the creator because 25% weren't getting ads. The claim the youtuber made is that this will probably predominantly impact creators with a more tech savvy / privacy aware audience, resulting in less of that niche content.
Anyway, this is anecdotal, but I wouldn't put it past Google to pass the issue to the creators for the actions of their consumers, even though it's not their fault.
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.
Then that achieves the same goal. If they're ignoring clicks from you, and you're blocking their trackers, then they probably don't have a good profile on you, because whatever they do have is either old, poisoned, or both.
This would still make a connection to the ad servers that can then track me though.
I guess with a hardened browser and a VPN it would be alright.
At this point I think it's better to poison the well.
Good start. Now make a version that clicks each ad a random number of times from randomly generated IP addresses.
That's not how IP addresses work.
What if we use a Visual Basic UI to hack the IP address by netmask?
Have it form connections to all the other browsers using the extension and they all send a click.
You can fake your IP. There isnt really any authentication at the IP level. Just make a packet and overwite the IP field.
Edit: I was corrected. The TCP handshake requires you to have a valid IP you can respond from. So even though you can fake your IP, you can't use that to talk to most websites.
Nothing is random
In bot cases like this you would have a proxy list that it “randomly” picks from
It does if it reports the URL to click home somewhere and users can opt in to pull the list to auto click.
It would DDoS the ad servers. Muwhahahaa
Totally doable if this was a distributed service.
ok not randomly generated, but you know
Interesting, was wondering about this. This would also "help" the websites with more ad income right?
if thats true, brb setting up a website and a bot farm
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".
Careful: that then enters the world of ad fraud, which randos like us doing the clicking isn't considered as.
Potentially.
Why can't uBlock Origin and this thing work at the same time?
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].
I use it because otherwise I'd use ublock anyways. So it either does it thing and if not, it's the same result as ublock.
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.
It's not even practically the same thing, it is exactly the same plugin as uBlock Origin, same UI, blocklists, etc but with added features.
I've used this for a while. Also, I love filling out corpo surveys because I feed them bad data. It's the little acts of chaos.
Another great extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/fake-data-haterapps/
If they want real information, they can pay me, and even then, well... :) Don't work for free.
Ha, this is as hilarious as it is creative. Interesting find; got any more?
Depends on the situation really, it makes me feel the joy of a naughty child. Roll with it. Where you can feed people bad data, do it. Where you cannot, strip it and block it. Obtusify and randomise how your computer connects to the internet (browser spoofs, VPNs, SPN, etc.), use containers (Firefox), support others breaking rules (https://snowflake.torproject.org/), contain your applications (https://safing.io/), spoof things like location etc. This is my little everyday act of anarchism. If people want to fight back against this bullshit, they should learn to stop complying with the folks putting everyone and everything in boxes. People are so used to mindlessly complying. It's my nerdy kind of fun. Make your phone & computer a poisoned apple when you have time.
Just curious- if ads are for something illegal, couldn't this expose me to liability for theoretically "clicking" it from my IP/device? And if ads are for something unsavory ( like a "chat with local cougars" site or something similar), wouldn't they start to deliver me more such ads, thinking, wow this IP is the only one clicking every sex chat ad, send them more!
How many websites do you browse with links to truly illegal content?
If you live in a country with truly abysmal human rights, definitely don't bother with this plugin, but in most cases you should be fine on the illegal side.
Even if somehow the website you're browsing has some super sketchy ad to buyillegaldrugshere.com or whatever, to get in trouble with the law in most civilized places you'd have to actually buy the illegal drugs, not just ping the illegal drugs IP. Especially since you can pretty easily prove to a judge that your system fetches ad links automatically and without further engagement.
Not saying it can't happen, just that it's really unlikely you would be served an ad for something so illegal just clicking on it is a liability. The literally only case I can think of coming close is CSAM, but even then, if you're regularly browsing websites that advertise CSAM, maybe find other websites to occupy your time? And I can just about guarantee any website serving CSAM ads is already doing illegal shit, so you should probably be more worried about that than an ad-click...
I'm not sure how many ads on different sites are sketchy. I don't feel like finding out, that's why I block it. There have been plenty of reasons that all sorts of illegal stuff gets inserted on well-meaning sites, so it seems like it's inviting all sorts of trouble to automatically click stuff without consideration.
I don't know, just sounds like I'd be contributing to the marketers metrics so they can show "it works". it'll only make them invest in ads more. if anyone thinks capitalists are these genius level manipulators who know how everything works I only refer to the richest person alive being the least charismatic, least knowledgable, unfuckable troglodyte who keeps making an ass of himself.
if any of these companies suffer any losses or reduced profits they'll just fire hardworking people, not one of them will turn around and say maybe the ads aren't working when you actively work to show them that it is working.
... until they keep having to dismiss people and go, "... huh." This is a marathon we're playing. You certainly don't have to use it, but I think the philosophy makes sense, especially given how AdNauseam doesn't click on acceptable ads that don't track you.
they will never go "huh". you give way too much credit to corporate management.
Can't tell if 4/1 gag or not! Brilliant!
This has been around for years. It's legit.
Oops, lol, I forgot about the date. This has existed for years.
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.
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.
Im too scared to trust it works out fine in the end to use it, been raised on the idea that interacting with an ad in any way other than task managering the pop up is dangerous. Wheres the part of the code that makes it safe and a write up of how it functions, otherwise im fine just blocking ads with regular ublock.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard, you'd have to be deranged to want an extension clicking random shit.
Edit: I've actually read it now and while not so bad, I still wouldn't use this on a computer that has my stuff on it.
it doesn't actually click on stuff. it "clicks" so that the advertisers' and your digital footprint's statistics get messed up, but you never see the results of the clicking, nothing pops up, nothing gets downloaded
It also adds noise to the site metrics and recommendation algorithm making them less valuable overall.
It's like the application that will watermark images with digital noise designed to throw off AI training that uses that image.
You're no longer a user who is able to be profiled (because you 'like' things completely at random). If everyone was using a plugin like this then advertisers wouldn't be able to serve targeted content because they wouldn't know what content types work best for each user because every user clicks ads randomly and so there is no detectable signal, just noise.
You get the same effect, but reduced, if less people are using it.
In addition, if half of the users on a website are using adblockers and suddenly those users start clicking ads, then it costs twice as much to advertise while not providing any additional customers which makes spending money on web advertisement less attractive.
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?
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.
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.
To each their own. I'm in your boat too, I think.
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?
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.
Ah great
Uh, wait a minute. 🤔
Sending a request also uses bandwidth, you know.
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.
Did you look at the FAQ?
https://github.com/dhowe/adnauseam/wiki/FAQ#how-does-adnauseam-click-ads
Also wouldn't this be directing a ton of money to google? (or I guess any other ad provider)
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.
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.
In the short term, I would think so.
In the long run, it makes it less appealing for companies to advertise, because they would have larger costs while having less sales. That, in return, hurts Google as advertisers don't want to pay as much anymore. If 80% of all users used this extension, advertisers would have to pay more than ever, while having only 20% of all users can be reached (simplified, of course).
Or in short, it's designed to hurt the system as a whole, not specific companies.