zlacker

[return to "AdNauseam Banned from the Google Web Store"]
1. Spoom+ga[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:31:23
>>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...

◧◩
2. ben0x5+sb[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:39:23
>>Spoom+ga
People should still be giving Google shit for decisions like that, even if they're not surprised.
◧◩◪
3. morley+Af[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:05:16
>>ben0x5+sb
Why does Google deserve the shit for stopping people from taking money from them? I wouldn't think to give a department store shit for pressing charges against someone who smashed up a bunch of merchandise, whether or not the act was politically motivated.
◧◩◪◨
4. nilved+Fg[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:11:29
>>morley+Af
Are you trying to relate clicking ads to smashing up merchandise?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. notaha+zk[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:34:23
>>nilved+Fg
Both actions are done with the stated intent of costing the target money. Sure, it only involves accessing URLs the public is actively encouraged to visit (in a manner intended to bring the system down) but so do many DDoS attacks...
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. doodpa+pC[view] [source] 2017-01-05 18:05:49
>>notaha+zk
Can you cite any evidence that the "stated" intent of AdNauseam is to cost the target money? According to their video, the intent is to protect the user's privacy by preventing advertisers from building an accurate personal profile of the user. You may argue that this has the effect of costing the advertisers money, but just because that is a result, doesn't make it the primary goal. It's certainly not AdNauseam's fault if the advertiser's business model depends on violating user privacy.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. notaha+yN[view] [source] 2017-01-05 19:06:14
>>doodpa+pC
From AdNauseum's FAQ

Indeed it is marginally safer for one to simply use a strong adblocker and protect themselves. And it is also safer to stay at home rather than to attend a protest. But safety is not the only concern. Using an adblocker does little to change the status quo. AdNauseam, and the obfuscation strategy in general, instead presents a possible avenue for collective resistance; a means of questioning and perhaps, eventually, changing the system. But this is not for everyone. If your goal is primarily self-protection, it may not be for you...

So they're aware of the fact this is worse at protecting privacy than a simple blocker, and equally unambiguous about their objectives being to change the status quo by damaging ad networks' business models. And yes, they've calculated the direct cost of some of those clicks too:

As the precise cost generated by clicks is not visible to the client, AdNauseam calculates an estimate using an average value of $1.58 for each clicked Ad.

[go to top]