Not only is it apparently banned from the store, but also it's being removed from existing user's machines, on top of not allowing new installs.
Edit: Going to quote my thread from that discussion as this announcement confirms they were banned over the single use policy...
> Other ad blockers "block ads" and "block annoying eu cookie notices". Should they be removed?
> I just visited the Chrome store and chose the first extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/office-online/ndjp.... It makes word documents AND spreadsheets?!
> Hopefully you can see where I'm going... whatever's written in the policy is difficult to enforce literally. Someone has to make the distinction based upon the intent of that policy. A person has to draw the line. If Google have made the decision based on that policy, well that's their decision.
> Reading https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose (part 4) makes me thinking "disrupting ad networks" could be that single purpose. Then it'd cover blocking & clicking. Just like "Office Online"'s "edit office documents" covering both "word processing" and "spreadsheets".
[1]https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/16737?hl=en
[2]https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/program_policies (ctrl-f, then search for "Interfering with Third-party Ads and Websites")
Edit: Hmm, below is correct. The "single purpose" policy is pretty hard to understand, and the reason Google gave for banning it. The policy above would seem more applicable.
Over 50% of all desktop users [0], or, in other words, hundreds of millions of people.
0: https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...
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...
It's not a huge amount, but you do pay to be there. See https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/publish
"Before you publish your first app, you must pay a one-time $5 developer signup fee"
"If you have a YouTube channel (s) and your logged in to that channel it will get your channel suspended for Violation of TOU #4 Section H" [1]
Has anyone else confirmed this behavior on YouTube?
1. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/rev...
> essentially all of the ad supported sites I visit are diversions
Anyone who's (or should be) a little bit concerned about security ?
Firefox has been absent from 2016's Pwn2Own contest because of insuffisant "security improvements in the last year".
This may change with the Electrolysis project[1]
https://hn.algolia.com/?query="i%20work%20at%20google"&dateR...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/rev...
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/xmarks-sync/
Actually, Google does track all of this stuff already:
http://adage.com/article/digital/inside-google-s-secret-war-...
Google could decide to just ignore IPs that host users that display this behavior pattern. But yeah, it's "easier" to just ban the offending Chrome extension.
Some legal resource I found online says that in the US fraud requires: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. [1] Note that "material fact" here is a legally significant phrase, and implies a written agreement or some other mutually agreed to terms that establish the expectation - which never happened between you and the ad provider.
No matter how you slice it the user of ad nauseum is not committing fraud. This misinformation needs to stop.
"A party does not have a right to rely on a representation if she is aware the representation is false, not enforceable, or not made to her."
It's clearly arguable that the ad network knows that a browser is able to click on an ad in an automated fashion. Thus, they do not have a right to rely on that representation, as it is not enforceable.
[0] - http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/common-law-...
"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."
Priorities clearly higher in killing ad blockers.
Most of the more-or-less mainstream distros ship Chromium in their standard repos. In fact, they're more likely to ship Chromium than Chrome due to the fact that the former is FOSS and the latter is not.
Neither macOS nor Windows have such a philosophy of "prioritize the FOSS alternative", so Chrome is unsurprisingly the better-supported option there.
This year I will try to fix the rough edges in any FF plugins I use instead of switching back to Chrome.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computin...