Something about this just doesn't feel right. Am I the only

>>62123032
I'm sure it'd be trivial to train an ML model to recognize fake ad traffic.
You are not only going to get discarded and filtered but also Google is going to get a great profile on you.

>>62123079
Yeah that's what I was thinking.
Kinda feel like /pol/ is fucking themselves.

>>62123032
every click sends data to the botnet. every ad is clicked. it makes you a worthless shitbag that likes everything. if everyone runs adnauseam, that means everyone clicks on the same thing, making everyone the same shitbag that likes every ad. Therefore, tracking is useless if everyone seems the same due to adnauseam, eventually killing tracking ads. It floods the market

Your gut feeling is correct. Reddit told /pol/ to install malware and they listened. They keep shilling their harmful software on this board too.

To figure out why adnausememe is bad, just use logic:

1. Bot that clicks things you don't see (bad)
>but fake clicks make the ad worthless! fuck you, google shill!

2. With each click, you are sending Google your browsing habits complete with time stamps which is arguably more valuable to Google than losing 2 pennies.

Uninstall this piece of malware and use safe software like vanilla uBlock Origin.

>>62123275
also, these advertisers are paying money everytime you click an add that you don't even see, so it rapes them a ton of money for ads that aren't hitting your eyeballs. Advertisers do not like this and pull from the market

>>62123288
>moonchild is on 4chan

>>62123275
>>62123304
Right, but there's a lot of metadata that's packed with a click, no? Each click is sending info about what website you were on and unique browser fingerprints. All that you're doing is helping their algorithms get better.
Advertising is already in a sorry state thanks to blockers, it feels like this extension is being shilled to convince people that they're doing something better than blocking while still giving data to ad networks.

>>62123288
>2. With each click, you are sending Google your browsing habits complete with time stamps which is arguably more valuable to Google than losing 2 pennies.
Unless you obfuscate your browsers data.

>>62123361
I just assumed that adnauseam handled it in such a way that it breaks that. I love open-source and privacy to a degree, but desu, it's a hobby and I couldn't care less if they got past my ways and collected a little bit of data. Either way, adnauseam is shitting all over the tracking ad market and would die out if everyone used adnauseam. Sometimes you have to take a small hit for the big heist, so I'll sell a little data to contribute to the wreckage of tracking ads.

>>62123288
>With each click, you are sending Google your browsing habits complete with time stamps which is arguably more valuable to Google than losing 2 pennies.

Then why are so many companies and websites panicing?

File: adsense1.png (30KB, 827x296px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 827x296px

You guys can make shit up and try to fear monger but Ad Nauseam is proven to work and google adsence is getting completely fucked over. Instead of shilling and spreading FUD you guys should just switch your sites to an alternative ad provider.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-25/google-refund-fake-traffic-advertising-revenue

>>62123452
>Then why are so many companies and websites panicing?
name one

your definition of panicking, most likely because you can't spell it, is flavored by the color of the goggles you read news with instead of reading the reality

>"refunds were issued"
>WOW THEY'RE AFRAID

>>62123452
>>62123374
What about if ad agencies are able to detect Ad Nauseam and silently filter out the fake clicks from their algorithms? ML technology is advancing rapidly, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. Then you're sending data to the botnet and doing no more than if you were just blocking ads.

>>62123479
I'm not trying to fear monger, I'm just trying to ask if anyone is thinking about the consequences of sending their data out like that. /g/ has always been very privacy-centric so I'm confused why it feels like so many people are hopping on board this.

>>62123032
It's clickfraud. It's just the success rate has fallen so much that they need to market it for voluntary installation rather than dropping it as malware. Ad Nauseum or whatever that fuck it's called runs clickfraud under the guise it fails 100% of the time and robs google of ad revenue they would normally receive. Truth is, you're not cliicking those ads anyway, and the clicks in does get away with goes into the pockets of the devs. You're voluntarily installing what would have been considered six months ago as malware just now it doesn't need persistence or propagation techniques to increase its capabilities. Dumbass, emotional alt-right retards install it voluntarily as an extension because they think they're making a difference (you're not). You're just lining the pockets of some ingenious social engineer.

>>62123525
>not liking the ad ridden state of the internet and wanting to do something about it means you're part of the alt right
yeah, nah. You're a cunt

>>62123499
>What about if ad agencies are able to detect Ad Nauseam and silently filter out the fake clicks from their algorithms

This kills the /pol/

>>62123452
>panicing
I've literally only seen some cuck block it from his furry fork and a few gadget numales pretending to be journalists write about it with plenty of conjecture

Most of the panic is just hype you're feeling from drinking your own piss.

I mean USE it if you really want to, but you're basically fueling the botnet.

>>62123525
Sorry about the ad revenue from your garbage websites anon it's really too bad your going to have to figure out another way to monetize.

>>62123499
Google is tracking you regardless through other means like captcha, Ad Nauseam destroys the profile they have on you. That said If you're really into privacy you probably already have a vpn and scripts disabled so an ad blocker would be irreverent.

>>62123690
Alright, but what about ad agencies filtering out Ad Nauseam clicks?

File: quote-i-m-going-to-f-ing-kill-google-steve-ballmer-136-50-57.jpg (45KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 850x400px

>>62123361
No, only Google gets the (useless) 'meta-data'. And like another anon says, it takes every precaution not to reveal anything other than a 'click'.

From their github FAQ:
>How does AdNauseam "click Ads"?

AdNauseam 'clicks' Ads by issuing an HTTP request to the URL to which they lead. In current versions the is done via an XMLHttpRequest (or AJAX request) issued in a background process. This lightweight request signals a 'click' on the server responsible for the Ad, but does so without opening any additional windows or pages on your computer. Further it allows AdNauseam to safely receive and discard the resulting response data, rather than executing it in the browser, thus preventing a range of potential security problems (ransomware, rogue Javascript or Flash code, XSS-attacks, etc.) caused by malfunctioning or malicious Ads. Although it is completely safe, AdNauseam's clicking behaviour can be de-activated in the settings panel.

>AdNauseam simulates clicks on Ads by issuing an AJAX request to the adserver in a background process. This request is made without opening any additional windows or pages on your computer. The text-only request is safely discarded by AdNauseam before it has a chance to execute in the browser (no DOM is constructed and no code is ever allowed to run). Further, all cookies from AdNauseam's visits are automatically blocked before they reach the browser's local storage.


I assume this add-on works because of Google's blockage of it and that WSJ article. Assuming this, there will be a lot of Anons spreading FUD about it so that Google stays safe.

If you think this is an elaborate ruse by Google to track you than I just don't agree. I don't think Google would undermine their AdSense schemes just to track metadata when Youtube and Map embbeds do just that.

>>62123771
requests, whether ajax or http have a return address. Using adnauseam alone is unsafe. Obfuscate your identity and, sure, run your clicker. I'd rather block all scripts and not kill my CPU on ten thousand ad requests.

>>62123759
let them try, google has been fighting fraud from click bots for years but now that "legitimate" users are randomly clicking ads it's going to get real messy to filter especially for people who dial down the Ad Nauseam click rate.

>>62123771
It's not FUD, it's basic shit that:
- All your XHRs will come from the same IP, sticking out like a sore thumb.
- Any decent pattern recognition software will detect suspicious traffic from your IP, and Google happens to do research on pattern recognition. Don't believe me? Check https://research.google.com/
It's the equivalent to mail spam from a single mailbox, you'll just get spamhaus'd and dropped.

>>62123946
If anyone can, it'd be Google.

>>62123947
If it comes to the point where people have Ad Nauseam set at or below the average click through rate it's going to get very difficult to identify.

Why is 4chan so militantly against google lol

>>62124104
why don't you go back where you came from lol

>>62124104
Lurk more, newfag

>>62124110
>>62124113
Google provides services for free that I like using. /g/ meme puppet masters trying to mind control everyone into being like them by spamming the word botnet is retarded.

>>62124104
>>62124143
Either you're a google employee/shill or you're reddit.

Either way
YOU
HAVE
TO
GO
BACK

>>62124143
>I like thing
>Therefore, thing won't do bad things to other people
Good argument, unfortunately that is not how reality works

>>62124143
If something is free, you are the product. Google uses your information and sells it.

>>62124169
This is also plebbit.
You're not taking into account any FOSS software, which is made with good intentions.

>>62124147
Nice meme. You might get more /g/ karma points if you include le jewish man meme image next time.

>>62124159
>>62124169
I'm more unclear as to why simply using their products isn't enough. Why the need for guy fawkes mask style internet vigilantism.

I guess in this case you might not want to support google at all via their ads, but if other sites have chosen to use those ads then the "causing damage" claim to people other than google makes sense

>>62124169
>inb4 but then Linux sells your info, Linux users btfo
Clearly, it's different because Linux is community developed and driven, and Google and its like are shareholder driven

>>62124104
t. average 4channer who is totally not from google guys

I hope no one in this thread is filling out the

G O O G L E
O W N E D
A N D
O P E R A T E D

reCAPTCHA service while making these /g/ posts.

>>62123479
I figured this thread was just started by a group from HN that is asspained that their shitty rust blogs and unprofitable startups are about to lose ad revenue.

>>62124169
HAHAHA. Oh God. Get the fuck out of here.

>>62124208
At least just call me a retard or some other insult instead of being this disillusion. Yes, google is paying people to browse /g/ and fight against "botnet" and "shill" shitposting to try and save marketshare.

>>62124184
Nobody is being a guy fawkes internet vigilante. We're saying not to do something that normal people do, because normal people are fucking idiots and don't know what they're doing. It's a normal thing in enthusiast communities.
You're free to ignore /g/'s advice, you'll probably never notice a single difference in your day to day life with your location services always on, using Windows 10, and googling things. But people on /g/ know that 90% of tech companies have malicious intent thanks to repeated and verified research, so we want to try and avoid that shit however we can.
>I fell for the bait

>>62124211
>not using legacy captcha and calle calle

I didn't even know about this meme until today. I've always just used uBlock Origin.

>>62124246
Just keep using and watch /pol/ get fucked from a safe distance.

>>62124233
Surprisingly, that's not a counter argument. Where is he wrong anon when those companies openly admit they sell your browsing, search, and other online data to advertisers?

>>62124264
I've seen levels of free you people wouldn't believe.

>>62124281
Cool beans. Elaborate or provide a counter argument besides "I've seen some shit" or "lol get out".

>>62124303
>t. wingdings user running a "private" chromefork

i wish i cared enough about digital privacy. the convenience of free google shit is too high.

Shouldn't running ad nauseam in a vm with a vpn basically mitigate any problems with sending your actual data to google? I haven't installed it yet, but I figure it's worth a try as long as it's not too big a pain in the ass to install and doesn't eat up too much resources.

>>62124322
I'm doing no such thing, shitposter-chan. Good job providing no examples, counter arguments, or anything of value
>>62124336
Okay, so why are you in this thread?

>>62124355
to read /pol/g/ hysteria in larger threads so that when people start shilling other browser plugins 20 times a day, I'll know what they are talking about

>>62124336
It's like watching porn. You know every time you do it you're damaging your ability to connect with people but its just so convenient. I recommend keep reading scare articles such as this one:
archive.is/4xwyC

>>62124355
>teach me what free software is
Why is it my responsibility to tell you to read the first post in the catalog?

>>62124378
Ok, I don't know why that warranted posting saying "I use Google, it's too useful lol".
>>62124393
Where did I say teach me free software? You're deliberately sliding the discussion trying to make me seem like the odd one out when you, I'm assuming, were the one who originally posted
>Haha oh God. Get the fuck out
In reference to someone saying, in summary, that Google sells user data. Fuck you for trying to be dishonest

>>62123032
I never heard of it till the other day. I think you would be wise to stay clear fo this malicious software, anon.

>>62124437
>sliding
God damn I wish Youtube wasn't banning edgy meme videos. When will these proprietary /pol/ normies get the fuck out of here?

>>62124442
Thanks Google, kindly go back to your advertising meetings.

How many free internet services would go away if google and similar alternatives that did things with your data disappeared?

Do people here want to pay to post on /g/?

>>62124469
Once again. I'm not from /pol/, I've never even been there or on any other of their gathering sites. And you still refuse to have a direct discussion and continue to turn the topic from what was originally said. Stop being dishonest.
>>62124482
You're implying Google is the only way the internet can survive without needing to pay. Of course that's stupid, and you wouldn't do that, right?

>>62124473
Every request adnauseam sends to Google contains your IP address. This is the way protocol works. The ID of each ad corresponds to a location. Thus using adnauseam allows Google to build a big beautiful profile on your browsing habits. It is considered malware when a developer doesn't disclose behavior that can harm you, the user. Use adnauseam all you want, but be aware of what you are doing. Consider the time tested tacting of blocking scripts as safe alternative that wont give Google data about you.

>But I use a tracking blocker too!
Using adnauseam, "You" make a request for each fake click to Google. The only way to hide "You" (your IP) would be to use a VPN. I'm actually giving adnauseam the benefit of the doubt in that it already prevents scripts and additional data to be sent to Google. Thus TrackMeNot is a useless placebo in this case.

The more fake clicks you send to google from your IP, the easier it is for Google to filter out your fake clicks. Again, they are still building a profile about your browsing habits. An actual safe way to run adnauseam, while still being effective, would be to constantly use a VPN while constantly changing you IP address. This will make it harder for Google to identify your traffic as a potential fake click.

>>62124482
I'd happily pay for an email service or a search engine if it gave me privacy.

>>62124519
So why don't users block scripts in addition to using the ad clicking software? I'm fairly certain it works with things like noscript already.

>>62124482
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+the+free+and+open+source+software+philosphy%3F

>>62124565
As stated, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that adnauseam blocks scripts for you, considering that it is built on uBlock.

However, that doesn't change how protocol works. In order to make a request, you need a return address. Every request made for a fake click is from you, your IP. Thus my advice for using a VPN still stands.

Consider using a VPN anyway for your safety while on the internet.

>>62123172
It's not an issue if you're running it through a spare machine 24/7 visiting popular websites via vpn

honestly a better way to weaponize this would be a DDOS botnet that just visits pages to click ads. I'm kind of wondering why nobody's thought of doing this yet.

>>62124616
They have. And its very crude. Which is why its easy for Google to identify. The botnet has very large amounts of data from which it can use to figure out what is a robot and what is a person. Don't underestimate its ability to win. We're already teaching it how to drive every time with post.

I don't think that they're going to get a lot out of clicking tons of random shit. Use a VPN if you're worried about them getting your IP.

>>62124482
4chan already makes enough money from 4chan pass users to get by without anything else.

Before moot left some aussie got administrative access to the server and found out how many people were paying for 4chan passes - this is back when 4chan's userbase was a fraction of its current size, and moot was raking in around $160,000/yr with them

It's probably at least double that now. Throw in all the ads and hiroshima selling user data, and the site is probably bringing in $500k/yr

So long as expenses are controlled, it's a profitable and self-sustaining little place.

>>62124646
The botnets you mention though, they're being used to defraud and make money

What I'm talking about is using them explicitly as a weapon. Costs don't matter, click ads on every website in existence, click all the ads everywhere and completely destroy this advertising cancer that has infected the internet

>>62124393
>It's like watching porn. You know every time you do it you're damaging your ability to connect with people but its just so convenient.
Subtle NoMeme plug. Amen.

>>62123032
>But isn't every click sending data to the botnet?
duh, the point is to flood the botnet with information that ISN'T personally relevant

>>62124803
This. It's the
>hide a tree in a forest
concept.

The sheer amount of kvetching over this is proof that it's incredibly scary for them to be getting boatloads of CRAP DATA. Data is how they make money, and if the data is bad they can't make money.

File: 3455217_p0.png (232KB, 600x540px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 600x540px

>>62124702
You might be on to something but the brute force autism clicking will be quite obvious from Google's perspective. Then it can just burn some cash to filter it out.

What might work is if we build a real, sincere robot that anyone can easily deploy on a VPS. The robot, we can call her ad-chan, behaves in the way a real person does while using the internet. She clicks on similar ads and visits similar websites around roughly the same time of day. The trick is to give her nuance so as not to give away that she is a robot. This kind of clicking would rot Google slowly over time. Days, weeks, months, years. Especially if we all deploy ad-chans to run quietly on our autism stations. We have technology.

A concern is we don't have Google data and we can't really for sure establish what clicking behavior best matches a human. But we probably have free access to research papers and periodicals which may give hints as to how a real person clicks and when.

>>62124998
The point isn't to appear to be human, the point is to click all of the ads indiscriminately. It's exactly that indiscriminate ad-clicking nature that makes it so harmful for ((( them ))), because you can't filter out ALL THE CLICKS.

>>62125040
Each spam click needs to have a unique IP and unique fingerprint. Otherwise it is very easy to filter out all the clicks.

Ad-chan is a slow march and we can each run many of her at once. A slow march makes socialists eat their own medicine, considering its how they destroy societies.

>>62125071
Yes, they see that those clicks are fake and then they go to Google and demand Google pay them money for all of the fake clicks. Google is directly, financially, harmed by every fake click they detect.

>>62125093
How long would this last? A month until they fix the problem and spam clicks are no problem for them.

I see your point though. However, I still stand by the idea that using a human-like clicker over time will give them false value and false profiles. Eventually it can reveal itself to be a robot by changing its behavior, thus popping bubbles of various advertisers. Possibly leading to people suing the shit out of Google.

>>62123288
So lemme get this straight:

They have Youtube and Maps tracking on every site.

"That's not good enough, scuttle the AdSense program and track people through ads"


What sense does that make, Google shill?

>>62125432
>how does TCP/IP work

File: 1500362939775.png (2MB, 1006x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1006x2000px

>>62123032
>But isn't every click sending data to the botnet?
Yeah, it's poisoned data. It's not a botnet, it's an advertiser database that is powering the entire internet and you faggots are ruining it.

You're actually trying to destroy the internet because you can't control it thanks to your basement dwelling-level intellect. It's quite disgusting if you think about it for a minute.

>>62125751
The internet doesn't run on advertising agencies though, and less of them can only be a good thing

>>62125751
>equating irrelevant ad-based websites to the whole internet
>"y-you virgin neckbeard basement dwellers!!!"
I'm sorry but you literally sound like an average butthurt youtube faggot nu-male ad apologist. I hope the network of literal shit you call "internet" fucking dies.

>>62123947
>get blacklisted by AdSense
>your data is no longer collected by the botnet because the botnet considers your data worthless

this is a win