zlacker

>>yuvada+(OP)
At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised?

AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money. Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense.

There is even a method to install it directly[1] which AFAIK Google has not blocked.

Granted, if Google were not both running the browser and the ad network, these actions probably wouldn't have been taken. But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top.

1. https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...

>>Spoom+ga
According to TFA, they are also blocking manual installs and updates.

>>NoGrav+Na
If true, that would be a bit more disappointing. Can someone verify?

Edit: Keep in mind I'm referring to developer mode installation per the link above, not directly installing the extension package from the store or a file.

>>Spoom+wb
I tried earlier today in Chrome Canary in developer mode and after a short while the extension disabled itself. When I try to enable it back again the console on the Extensions page says "Unchecked runtime.lastError while running management.setEnabled: Extension kkendhmcacabobepidajpejenjinojhp cannot be modified by user."

>>Artemi+te
100% assholish on google side to disable side loading for a very specific extension.

The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension.

>>malka+Nf
> The good thing of course is that it shows that they are afraid of such an extension.

Seriously. I'd figured they'd filter these "clicks" out easily server-side and didn't bother to install this thing, but this ban has hinted otherwise. I'll be installing it everywhere I can now.

>>ashark+7k
Why such "clicks" would be easy to filter on the server side? What distinguishes them so clearly?

>>nine_k+eq
Well, tons of them coming from one IP address, on seemingly every site that address visits, for one thing.

>>ashark+Nq
"One IP address" as in "the address of the same NAT box"?

With IPv6 it could work, or maybe with the local IP address passed by the script at click time, but the latter would be trivial to forge.

>>nine_k+mv
Sure, but most or all ads on every page visited by a given IPV4 address surely throws up red flags, NAT notwithstanding. And all this is assuming that the extension bypasses session tracking and makes resorting to IP address necessary in the first place.

Then again maybe it doesn't, since they bothered to ban this extension. They did seemingly more-or-less give up trying to sort spam search results from low-traffic but high-value sites a few years back, so I guess they can't algorithm their way out of every abuse problem.

[EDIT] all ads on some pages visited by a given IP over some shortish span of time, I should say, in the case of NAT.