this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
855 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

69491 readers
3879 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 142 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

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?

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 175 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)
  1. not in this way
  2. not enough to matter

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.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Also wouldn't this be directing a ton of money to google? (or I guess any other ad provider)

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 58 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

The advertisers could be paying based on interactions and/or their rates could be negotiated around interaction, so unless a sizeable number of people use this it would be giving money to Goog

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 42 points 4 weeks ago

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.

[–] cageythree@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

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.