Adblocking and AdNauseam thread

>>62193742
>fighting botnet with botnet

>>62193771
听过以毒攻毒这一词吗?

>>62193771
that's the only way anon

Arguments against ads:
- They provide unsollicited information, which distracts and irritates users.
- They use screen real estate.
- They use bandwidth.
- They use energy.
- They make websites slower.
- They introduce security problems.
- They track users, collect their data.
- They incentivize companies to disrespect our privacy.
- They put users in an information bubble.
- Market failure: not the "best" product wins, but the one with the biggest advertisement budget behind it.
- They make people feel inconfident (see photoshopped fashion ads)
- They play with our minds.
- They are often targeted at children.


If you see advertising as a social ill, that seeks to manipulate people into making purchases that they neither need nor will make their lives better. If that's what you believe it doesn't seem inconsistent to want to do everything you can to make advertising nonviable.


To put it simply: ads work against the free market; instead of the "best" product, the one with the largest advertisement budget wins.

>>62193771
you have to become a jew to fight the jew
haven't you learned anything from /pol/?

File: 1484862171721.png (534KB, 1362x666px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1362x666px

Show me your AdNauseam stats /g/

>>62193850
this

>>62193884
anyone else?

>>62193742
So I do as instructed on https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on-Chrome-Without-Google's-Permission but when I go to load the folder it says "could not load manifest"

What do?

what adblock list do you use, mine doesn't block as many as ublock..

>>62193742
>adblocking doesn't work
what?
i don't care about """making a difference in the world""", and anyone who thinks they can meaningfully do so is probably a young naive kid
i care about not being annoyed by ads
which i'm not
because adblocking stops me from seeing them
i.e., it works

>>62193742
Since ads count against my data cap, they are literally wasting my money. It costs me to load an ad.

>>62195320
Guys, don't listen to him. Keep trying your best. Posters like this are just trying to destroy your morale

>>62193742
>Can we all finally agree that adblocking doesn't work?

I cannot come up with a sound insult right in the morning, so you have to go with a "kill your fucking self dumb shit". Adblocking works. Just use a plain fucking adblocker with element hiding or LibreJS if things get bad, not flavour-of-the-week goatshit like adnauseam, gorshills crap etc.

File: WwzB54f[1].png (308KB, 1279x822px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1279x822px

>>62193884

Just started doing this a few hours ago.

>>62193771
>replying to English in English

>>62195336
>not using wifi

Does someone have an automated web browsing bot or something, that can just pretend to browse the internet in a VM or something? This by design doesn't properly block ads so it can pretend to click on them, rendering it unsafe for daily driving

>>62195394
Adblocking does not work as in it does not stop Google cyberstalking you.

This protects you against it.

>>62193742
>adblocking doesn't work
uBlock, uMatrix, Privacy Badger and countless other but less significant or just simply unknown ad-blocking/privacy retaining extensions don't work? The only ads I ever see are "We've detected you're using an ad-blocker" and I just never use those sites again.

>>62195422

What you just described is exactly what I'm doing here

>>62195400

>>62195422
It also block ads. You are actually safer because the ads are only the results of their cyberstalking, not the mean.

>>62193742
>use adnauseam
>click on random ads
>Google thinks you're a lonely anime pedophile who does drugs and masterbates
>they won't use this information against you
>But... It's just a prank!

Nice try, I'm not falling for your honeypot.

>>62195443
it has to load them to interact with them. Every ad you see in a screen like this
>>62195400
is one it applied an element hiding rule instead of a network filter rule to. This at a minimum allows tracking mechanisms to function.

>>62195453
Joke's on you; you post on 4chan.

>>62193771
some men just want to watch the world burn

File: 1504203620573.jpg (103KB, 808x820px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 808x820px

>>62195453
>lonely
>anime
>pedophile
>drugs
>masterbates

File: Clipboard01.jpg (83KB, 909x532px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 909x532px

>>62193884
just started day 4

>>62195425
Are you retarded?
An AdBlocker stop ads from loading. This shit is clicking on the ads and thus linking you to a google profile (it will contain random trash, I will give you that).

This is just another shill attempt from /pol/niggers that doesn't work.

>>62195549
I am not retarded like you. I am very smart, in fact I am smarter than you. Your google profile already knows everything about you without you clicking or loading the adverts. You already understand it will give Google random trash. Now you understand that is exactly how it works.

Not a black person. You should not use that language.

>>62195431
no it doesnt, blocking ads will only create more ads, we have to click them to get rid of them

File: 1504127100471.jpg (59KB, 895x653px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 895x653px

>>62195622

>>62195622
you're probably eating fried chicken right now, Jayquon.

File: iamverysmart.jpg (40KB, 506x337px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 506x337px

>>62195622

>>62193742
I'm a little confused about adnauseam. So, it's clicking literally every ad, right? Wouldn't that mean that it still sends advertisers my info and shit? Google can't track me very well because it looks like I fucking love everything, but my info is still being shit out all over the place.

Unless I'm mistaken?

>>62195811
no, you set it to click 50% of ads

>>62195811
>it's clicking every ad
it can, but it's better to have it only click some to make it harder to detect
>Wouldn't that mean that it still sends advertisers my info
Yep.
>Google can't track me very well because it looks like I fucking love everything
not just you, but everyone. This poisons their entire dataset and makes it harder for their AI to make guesses about others as well as about you.

>>62193742
i like the idea, but it's too buggy and stable releases come out yearly so it's basically unusable in the meanwhile.

>the ABSOLUTE state of pale moon
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=16504

>>62195954
That's a real shame, I used to like them. We let people get too much headway with "blocking ads=theft" nonsense and this is what happens, the gullible take it and run with it thinking they'll be praised by the imaginary people the shills pretended to represent.

>>62193742
Nice try commie

>>62195811
Often suggested set it to 10 to 50% click rate to avoid detection.

>>62195400
>Just started doing this a few hours ago.
>$300 already
nice!

>>62195506
>$1000
awesome!

>>62195811
randomness is the best. if you set it below 50%, there's no way they can detect it.

Iv had this installed for a week now and it hasnt clicked any ads. how the fuck do i fix this?

>>62196019
Adnauseum is anarcho capitalism at its finest, I love it.

>>62196075
it doesnt work with other ad or script blockers

>>62196075
disable all other blockers. AdN is a blocker itself.

>>62196103
>>62196113

I dont have any other extensions installed

>>62193742
i agree too many normies don't have adblock we need to create malware that adds addblock to normies computers

>>62196147
the problem is that fucking neckbeards installed adblockers to their sisters and miothers computers, no one cared about adblocking before pythonistas and anime watching faggots started to preaching.

>>62196124
show a screenshot of your options.
do you have a hosts file blocking?
DNS server based bllocking?

>>62196124
...did you enable it? Literally "is it plugged in" level question, but when you install it it's turned off by default.

>>62196090
>""""anarcho"""" capitalism
>clicking ads for a company because an add-on they developed tells you it's better than actually blocking

AdN is placebo garbage. Use Pry-Fi if you actually want to "cause war"

>>62196174
fuck off shill. you're transparent.

>>62196186
no, you're a window!

>>62196168
>>62196171

Hide ads, click ads, and block malicious ads are all enabled, click rate is 50%, first two options under extra privacy and interface are checked. The ads are hidden just fine, but it doesnt seem that any have actually been clicked

>>62196174
blocking is a placebo, it does literally nothing

>>62196212
>it does literally nothing
It does. It keeps that shit from showing up on my fucking browser.
Kill all nauseum shills.

File: 1481750693313.jpg (80KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 450x450px

>>62195406
You still use data even if you connect through wifi, einstein

File: 1483472124666.jpg (44KB, 393x700px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 393x700px

>>62193742
>Can we all finally agree that adblocking doesn't work?
What are you talking about? I don't see any ads, so they work the way they should.
Guess what will happen once ad blockers become even more mainstream. If websites don't create enough money to pay for the website, they will either try everything to block users of ad blockers or will charge people.

Nevertheless, I support AdNauseum against Google (+ other cancerous websites).

File: 92061477325029.jpg (57KB, 785x800px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 785x800px

>>62196230
sub is ok, lets see what will happen after they implement it

>>62196223
use somebody elses wifi

>mfw use brave with the brave ads option
>mfw still never ever see ads
>mfw no face

>>62193742
I keep searching for a $2000 fluke multimeter by specific model number on google.com.

Seeing as how adnauseam says that people are paying up to 50 bucks per click, it seems like the smart thing to do is to search for very specialized, expensive things.

File: sombraadnauseam.jpg (90KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 900x900px

Dumping some fanart

File: 1438798829136.jpg (57KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x500px

>>62196241
But if you live in america they will have a data cap as well

>>62196230
>other cancerous websites
Like 4chan.org? Well, me too

>>62196241
Not that dude, but I never connect to a public wifi. If I can manage to get into Wifi that I don't own, then I consider it public.

>>62196250
heh, you're on the right track anon!

check this shit out:

https://jsfiddle.net/codefag/3t9r045q/

it searches for most expensive keywords and clicks them.

>>62196258
I have no data cap on my plan. 45/month for 20 mbit/sec. Kind of shit, but considering I have no data cap, it gets to be more fair.

>>62196265
Tried it. Searches the most popular keywords, not the most expensive. Also, it's mostly services, like DUI attorney in Florida, which generates generic ads.

I don't blame people for using the script. I do when I'm feeling lazy or stepping away from the computer.

>>62196261
>>62196268
>>62196274
these look amazing anon! whoever starts a new thread, please use these images!

>>62196274
you are *not* authorized to use my husbando in your images

File: seas of water seas of time both isolate ardania.jpg (50KB, 1050x592px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1050x592px

>>62193742
question,
should I uninstall ghostry/adp after adnauseam is installed? or is more the merrier?

>>62196056
it's literally just multiplying number of clicks by $1.58

i really doubt advertisers are paying that much per click

>>62196302
Just disable. Don't have to uninstall. I would get a free vpn, though.

>>62196238
You must deactivate all other adblockers. Otherwise AdNauseum has nothing to click on.

>>62196306
>i really doubt advertisers are paying that much per click
some are paying tens of $ for some keywords.

>>62196297
Literally who

So this helps the website you visit while also fudging the useable ad data while I would still see nothing like I'd be using ublock ?

>>62196386
no, it fucks up sites that advertise on google

>>62196282
>literally stolen artwork with a stupid logo pasted over it and a bright eyebleeding neon applied
>"Wow these look great!"

Holy shit you adniggers are literally children

>>62193742
Just use a different adblocker lmao

>>62196409
Stop posting any time
These are awful

>>62196405
I don't understand

>>62196386
No. Whatever site you use this on will actually harm the trust between that site and the people paying to advertise on it.

The entire goal is to hurt google, who has more than 90 percent of their shit sunk into converting your info into specialized advertisements. Fake clicks means that people paying to advertise are paying for a click that doesn't actually happening. Google isn't refunding the full price (only about 10%), which will erode trust in them.

Google has been acting like the arbiters of what is ok for people to see, manipulating search results and censoring videos that don't actually break YT's terms of service (while leaving videos that DO break the ToS up and monetized). The entire purpose of my fuckery is to remind them that we can fuck back.

File: 1493576091063.jpg (176KB, 851x1622px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 851x1622px

>>62196417
>plebbit as fuck
>butthurt too
you need to go back there to shill for Jewgle. no one here buys your lies

>>62196434
This is really stupid. Google collects info on you through more than just ads. This isn't going to help.

>>62196458
They collect info through everything. They make their money through ads.

File: 1475772704045.jpg (146KB, 703x1423px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 703x1423px

Check this shit out:

>Insane state of today's advertising part 3.
>Companies like Cedato and http://Adap.tv (now OneByAOL?) are the scum of the Internet. Ads like these make me so mad. Just look at this shit.

>A static ad loads. Then behind the scenes thousands of requests continue to execute, absolutely destroying browser performance. And the worst part is nothing is even happening on the screen - the ad that is showing is completely static.

We really need to kill these companies by making them unprofitable.

https://plus.google.com/+ArtemRussakovskii/posts/53n5LdCYTbF

>>62196458
the point is to make advertising on google extremely expensive for advertisers so they stop doing that

>>62196462
>Alphabet is solely held up by ads

You're a complete retard.

>>62196486
No, the goal is to erode trust in google as an advertiser. They charge a premium for their ads, up to 50 dollars per click. They aren't willing to fully refund fake clicks (most they have ever refunded is about 10%). If they get flooded with fake clicks, and people are only getting 10% back, then they still lose 90% of that investment and have nothing to show for it.

Would YOU continue to use Google as an advertiser under these circumstances?

>>62196507
If you look at their revenue, its over 90% ad shit. They are looking at severe downsizing if that shit dies.

>>62196507
when we kill ads, data mining will die too

>>62196500
please don't associate yourself with antifa retards. you're just killing your image

File: 9104863506736177.jpg (247KB, 1224x1445px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1224x1445px

>>62196507
yes it is

>>62196508
Because Google is a huge platform that reaches millions worldwide daily.

File: revenue streams 5 tech companies.png (107KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1200x900px

>>62196507

Source for pic related is:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-apple-facebook-amazon-microsoft-make-money-chart-2017-5

>>62193742
>Can we all finally agree that adblocking doesn't work? How long have we been blocking ads for?
How doesn't it work? I don't see ads.

>>62196525
AdNigs are literally antifas, and also being used by corporations like antifa

>>62196507
it is though. are you joking?
>>62196508
google is just going to find an even more intrusive way to do advertisements. I was pretty fine with just using adblockers and keeping everything stable, but now who knows what google will do and how advertisements will work. you're really going to shake things up possibly for the worst. I don't think it's going to deter advertisers as much as people like to say it will, it'll just encourage a paradigm shift in how ads are presented

>>62196535
And that doesn't mean shit to a dude who can't sell the product they are paying up to 50 dollars per click for.

If you were paying 50 dollars per click on a very specialized piece of equipment, and NOBODY was actually buying it, would you keep paying for google to advertise?

>>62196557
>Can't sell the product
Why does blocking or even clicking on all the ads suddenly mean that people will stop buying things?

>>62196545
>How doesn't it work? I don't see ads.
ad companies are healthier than ever. i think that was his point you baka.

These threads are fucking horseshit spread by anti-adblock shills trying to create a cause for legally stopping ad blocking.

>>62195425
>ad blocking does not work
As opposed to
CONNECTING TO AND LOADING THE AD SYSTEM
AND THEN USING IT TO MAKE "FAKE" CLICKS?
Yeah no, sorry cunt. I'm going to block scripts and forcibly deny loading into the ad networks.

>>62195622
You're not black but you're still a nigger. How's that work?

>>62196251
superimposing a logo on somebody else's work is not fanart. shitty memes are not fanart.

>>62196554
>google is just going to find an even more intrusive way to do advertisements.
And we'll find a way to fuck with them then, too.

>I was pretty fine with just using adblockers and keeping everything stable
I'm not saying everyone should think the way I do. But they have too much power to wield it the way that they are currently doing it.

>but now who knows what google will do and how advertisements will work. you're really going to shake things up possibly for the worst.
Maybe for you. I pay for the shit I use. Worst case scenario for me: google dies, and either a new platform pops up that requires a subscription that pays to creators based on viewership (which I'm fine with)

>I don't think it's going to deter advertisers as much as people like to say it will, it'll just encourage a paradigm shift in how ads are presented
Which won't bother me at all. I typically NoScript, anyways, and only use products that offer some kind of encryption. Hell, I even pay for a 4chan pass so that I won't need to activate Google scripts here.

>>62196574
Adblocking isn't about killing ad companies, it's about protecting yourself.

>>62196568
>You tell google that you are willing to pay 50 dollars per click of your specialized hardware
>You throw down 10,000 dollars for the ad, relatively sure that when people see the exact thing that they want in a picture, along with the price you are offering, they will only click the ad if they like the price.
>One day later, your ad is no longer showing up because the money you sank into google is gone.
>You have no sales
>Google admits that it's ad fraud, but is only willing to pay you $1,000 of the $10,000 you invested.
What do you do? Throw in another $10,000 and hope that it works out?

>>62196594
depends on your perspective. problem is that advertising is changing the internet for the worse.

>>62196594
Ad companies necessarily want to harm you. Protecting yourself, your children, your neighbors etc requires putting them out of business.

What do you guys have against Ads?

Nobody is going to simply donate money to every site they visit. How do you expect sites to keep running? The site you are using RIGHT NOW is depending on adrevenue, those 4chan passes don't do shit.

If you don't like ads, use a generic adblocker and get rid of them. Bam, you won't see jackshit anymore. Why try to get rid of adnetworks themselves? You are gettng rid of the whope internet at the same time you fools.

>>62196610
>changing the internet for the worse.
Fuck off shekelberg

>>62196618
Everything wants to harm you. Especially the government.

>>62196629
>What do you guys have against Ads?
Nothing, especially when done correctly a la Amazon Affiliate Links, which can't be harmed by Adnauseam. That said, I have a hate boner for Google.

>Nobody is going to simply donate money to every site they visit. How do you expect sites to keep running? The site you are using RIGHT NOW is depending on adrevenue, those 4chan passes don't do shit.
Good thing I pay for a pass so that I can use NoScript to block google scripts on this site, and DON'T use Adnauseam here (only on Google).

>If you don't like ads, use a generic adblocker and get rid of them. Bam, you won't see jackshit anymore. Why try to get rid of adnetworks themselves? You are gettng rid of the whope internet at the same time you fools.
Not the whole internet, at least not me. Just Google.

File: police.jpg (264KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 900x900px

>>62196525
>>62196551

Look at me, I am the police now

>>62196629
>What do you guys have against Ads?
Already a good list up near the top of the thread.

>Nobody is going to simply donate money to every site they visit.
Then come up with a better idea that's actually ethical.

>How do you expect sites to keep running?
In a way that doesn't involve selling me as a product, violating my privacy, infecting my computer, or filling my head with garbage and lies.

>The site you are using RIGHT NOW is depending on adrevenue
I didn't choose 4chan's business partners. I do get to choose which of them I allow access to my computer.

>Why try to get rid of adnetworks themselves?
They actively poison everything they touch.

>>62196629
I'm not one of the AdNauseam shills or brainwashed idiots. You have guys like the "super special expensive keywords" poster harming companies whom probably have no ill intention when trying to market and sell their specialized product. Companies that probably measure units per quarter in the hundreds, thousands at best.

I block ads for the bandwidth savings, time savings, and power savings. Hell, adblockers on a (android) phone are revolutionary in that regard. I never need, want, nor use ads so it's just wasted for me, my ISP, and the companies. The way I see it, everyone actually saves money by not serving me the ads they'll never profit off of in the first place.

>>62196618
>necessarily want to harm you
I think they necessarily want to sell other people's products and services, and only a minority is truly harmful.

Hurting the legitimate business of a lot of people just trying to make a living (like the specialized equipment vendors discussed prior in the thread) for the sake of damaging Google is not good, not just, and not honest. Picking the biggest spenders willy-nilly without regard for their morality or intentions is not honest.

Ya'll in this thread are being duped and only bad things will come from it.

>>62196629
This: >>62196651
What you're essentially saying is that I'm fucking up Germany by bombing North Korea.

As long as one uses the extension in a very targeted way, you aren't "damaging the entire internet." You're only damaging the trust of the site you use it on in regards to how well it actually advertises.

File: faefbef2-013f-11e5-95bc-afb5d79fd2c2.png (1MB, 1610x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1610x2160px

>>62196629
I have a right to know what content is on my network. When I visit a page I expect to load what I'm looking for, nothing else

>>62196682
>I'm not one of the AdNauseam shills or brainwashed idiots. You have guys like the "super special expensive keywords" poster harming companies whom probably have no ill intention when trying to market and sell their specialized product. Companies that probably measure units per quarter in the hundreds, thousands at best.

Google is an advertiser. The only way to harm google is to break the trust that companies have with them regarding their ability to target ads and sell a product. You don't click the ads, you don't harm the trust, and Google continues on.

File: 2579822144.jpg (14KB, 262x263px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 262x263px

LET THE GOOGLE HIT THE FLOOR!!!!

>>62196696
And you're actively, knowingly and willingly fucking over who knows how many companies whom are just trying to make a living in the process.

I guarantee you that's solid grounds for a legal recourse that is just going to fuck everyone over.
Using the ad system, even though it's "faking the system", still links the user. You're not hidden doing this.

>>62196525
This. Antifa are the useful idiots for the liberal communist elites.

File: 9335338018.png (238KB, 491x491px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 491x491px

>>62196716
what will they do? put me in prison along with child molesters?

>>62196716
>And you're actively, knowingly and willingly fucking over who knows how many companies whom are just trying to make a living in the process.
Indeed, but it should be noted that I'm ONLY fucking with the companies doing business with google, an entity that mines your data in order to target specific ads, and charges per click, rather than per sale resulting from that click (unlike Amazon Affiliates, for example).

It's not like these businesses are innocent. They are complicit with what Google is doing. So fuck them.

>>62196716
>You're not hidden doing this
VPN, nig nog.

>>62196682
if by "minority" you mean google, facebook, and all of the other major advertisers lol. All of them lol.

Those equipment vendors should choose better business partners if it's no longer profitable to associate with them. They are not entitled to buy and sell me as a product.

>>62196716
Clicking on adverts is by definition a responsive action. Responding as quickly as the server can send me adverts cannot be an act of spam or flood attack because that would make your server the attacker and the clicker the victim.

If clicking on adverts more than a number in a certain period is illegal, why would sending the clicker at least the equal number of adverts in the same time period legal by the same logic?

By any measure and by any definition of the law, clicking on all the adverts all the time is not illegal.

However Google might be committing click fraud by knowingly send out adverts to the same person before he can reasonably click a second time. That is, the technical method of how Google display their advert is flawed, but they still
charge advertisers by number of clicks, not by the more reasonable measure of how a normal person who intent fulfil the purpose of the advert, i.e. clicking and then proceed to become a customer brought in by the clicking action, would need time to complete said action and therefore complete the purpose of the paid advert, therefore the risk of displaying adverts during this time when a person is still completing this process triggered by an earlier advert he clicked, lies solely on Google alone as it is a completely understandable, foreseeable and preventable risk that the commercial model that Google choose to follow carry. In other words, it is a risk that originates from Google's however justifiably flawed technical method of serving adverts that Google decided to accept by adopting said flawed advert delivery method of the flawed model of advert commercialization.

Therefore Google may be committing click fraud (towards the advertisers) by adopting said flawed methods and models. Which explains the previous lawsuits they decided to pay out over the last few years.

Therefore, however unrealistic and unhuman clicking on adverts multiple times a minute can be, it is also not illegal to do so.

>>62196716
You mean google is fucking them over by failing to uphold what was promised? Nobody would be doing this if Google were an honest, wholesome company. Google's sleaze is costing those companies money.

>>62196651
Funny thing is, Google has one of the least instrutive ads of all ad networks.

They don't feature PopUps or PopUnders or any autoplaying video ads. And even their banners neeed to follow strict guidelines (no annoying gifs etc.)
The reason everyone uses Adsense is because of their amazing targetting features. It is their key selling feature.

Other networks just randomly show clickbait ads like "DONT EAT THIS OR YOU WILL LOOSE WEIGHT" and shit like that. Streaming sites also looove to use PopUnder ads. But heyy, Atleast eeviol Googil issn't violaating myy privaccy amirite xDDD.

Yet, you try to kill the only semi decent adnetwork because muuh botnet.
But the botnet part is what actually makes it a bearable network.
You think when AdSense dies (will never happen btw) people are just going to stop buying ads? Lol.

Another network with the exact same feature set will popup (hehe) and replace adsense. You aint doing shit by killing Google besides boosting your Ego by feeling "powerful".

And do you really think those numbers AdNasimeme gives you are accurate? Any simply Algorithm will be able to split People who click on every ad possible without even interacting with it, and people who just casually click on ads related to the content they are currently consuming?
We are talking about fucking Google here, they have the know how.

>>62196735
Any site can and most sites do, collect and sell as much info as they can about you.

At least Google is trying to get to know you and things you like instead of filling your inbox with stupid shit

>>62196738
I'll give you that, I will, but how many actually use VPNs? This is being shilled on /pol/ for fucks sake, 2-4million+ reddit tier normies when it comes to internet and technology.
>>62196732
With Trump's business cronies in control of the FCC, business harming practices over the internet model will not be taken lightly.

>>62196758
>other people abusing a system is Google's own fraud! I swear! If the system wasn't set up to serve real traffic with little protection against faked traffic Google wouldn't be committing fraud!
>>62196753
It's pretty sleazy to target the money of other people trying to make a business work.

I'll fight this every time I have the chance. You guys are creating more trouble for the user than the companies, mark my words, and we will all suffer the legal effects once this spreads and makes millions and millions in damages and lost sales to honest companies just advertising their product.

If you guys really want a subscription model of the internet, which is necessary for large sites now without ad models, you've no reason to complain about "Net neutrality" forcing the same.

>>62196810
Are you actually trying to convince me that Google is a good guy for data-mining the ever-loving fuck out of you? Fuck off.

File: lotr.jpg (443KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 900x900px

More shitty fanart

>>62196800
>They don't feature PopUps or PopUnders or any autoplaying video ads. And even their banners neeed to follow strict guidelines (no annoying gifs etc.)
My issue with Google has nothing to do with the way they display ads.

>>62196839
No, he is saying that Google atleast makes good use of that data.

>>62196847
Yeah, I know, you are one of the MUUHH BOTNET guys who think Google is evil for targetting ads instead of randomly displaying clickbait shit. I get you.

>>62196856
>No, he is saying that Google atleast makes good use of that data.
Ok, so you're not excusing it. Glad that you don't object to what I'm doing on the basis of it, then.

>Yeah, I know, you are one of the MUUHH BOTNET guys who think Google is evil for targetting ads instead of randomly displaying clickbait shit. I get you.
Swing and a miss, champ.

>>62196863
List for me the specific ad-serve companies that go through Google and employ nasty user raping tactics.

I put forth that this AdNauseam campaign should be targeting only those companies, and not the entire model.
Indiscriminately targeting all ads is not the way to go when going after the money.

>>62196800
There is no such thing as a decent or semi-decent ad network.

It's like saying "this telemarketing firm isn't so bad, they only call before and after dinner, not during." Or "this pickpocket sure is nice, they didn't take my passport, they only copied the information."

>>62193742
God I wish you would stop spamming your shit.

Adblockers aren't some kind of weapon in some retarded struggle against le evil man. They're for protection.

>>>/pol/

>>62196876
>List for me the specific ad-serve companies that go through Google and employ nasty user raping tactics.
Don't need to. Has nothing to do with my reason for hating google.

>I put forth that this AdNauseam campaign should be targeting only those companies, and not the entire model.
Indiscriminately targeting all ads is not the way to go when going after the money.
I reject your proposal. You don't seem to understand why I'm doing this. It isn't because of the ads they serve, or how they serve it. At this point, anyone who doesn't acknowledge these facts is willfully ignorant, so more than 99% of people opt in to this system, meaning they are ok with it.

Their ads have nothing to do with why I am trying to hurt them.

>>62196893
Right, so you're just a child. Got it.

>>62196881
Decent compared to other ad networks obviously.

Is there a way to enable the detailed view known from ublock?

>>62196901
No. Not at all. I'm just enough of an adult to realize where their profits come from, and am willing to hit them in their wallet. And I don't feel pity for companies that are harmed because they were complacent enough with Google's methods of advertisement.

>>62196884
The best defense is a harsher offense.
Cucks like you should go back to the >>>/lgbt/.
WW2 would never have been won if people then thought like your cucked mind does.

>>62196916
>Clicking the ads will hurt their wallets

AdNigs are literally this retarded

>>62196928
It will. It will break the trust with those hiring google to advertise for them, because google is only refunding 10% of the money the company put down, despite acknowledging that it is fake clicks causing the problem.

If the people wanting to advertise don't trust Google, then they won't advertise through google, and google, who makes 88% of its revenue through advertising, will be hurt.

Blocking ads hurts only the site you are reading... And that's one important problem.
Clicking ads, with or without bots, hurts the front the back and the middle... And hurting the middle, e.g. alphabet, is the way to force lazy sites to manage their ads, because that's the greatest problem with ads...sites that serves you malware on their site via google.
Once sites stop using alphabet's or any other botnet's malware ads, adneasium will become obsolete.
Letting google force feed ads to idiots who can't block ads is unacceptable. It is our moral duty to create end points and destroy google's way of force feeding everyone with ads.
We have very little tools on our hands, most of our browsers are shifting towards botnets(15years netscape/firefox user here) and we have very little time to act.
Those who claim that doing so is bad... But yet again there are ppl who vote hilary, think macs are useful and think blm.
Get of your ass and do it faggot.

>>62196919
Fuck you /pol/

Stay on your fucking containment board for once. Nobody likes you.

>>62195336
Adnauseam doesn't actually load the page the ad links to iirc, it just sends a fake request to make it seem like a click.
Though I guess it must download the ad's picture for the vault.

>>62196990
You are the one who is /leftypol/.
You fuck off there with your retarded ludite mind.

>>62197043
I thought Leftypol was on board because it was hitting a super rich mega corporation?

We need a pure P2P decentralized internet, no more server costs, no more ads.

>>62197090
leftypol is on board with telling other people how they should live and think even if it contradicts their own ideology often, and you pretty much are on that bandwagon faggot.
Nobody likes faggots telling other people shit.
Fuck off to >>>/leftypol/

>>62197105
But I'm not lefty....

>>62197108
Yet you posted like one.
Both pol and leftypol, fuck off!

>>62197111
No, I didn't. I was just saying what I had heard about leftypol.

I'm not >>62196990

>>62197124
My apologies then.

>>62197133
Apology accepted. I'm doing my part. Fuck google.

You guys realise this is just telling Google what sites you visit, right?

>>62197175
I am using a web browser that I haven't used for anything else, and am just constantly searching google for very specific, very expensive items.

They are welcome to pull everything they want from that, while I continue to use another browser (with NoScript) for literally everything else.

>>62197199
>very specific, very expensive items

Niche industrial companies aren't the way to go. You're hurting the companies making and selling these things more than the advert system they choose to reach potential buyers.

You people in this thread want to talk about ethics and morality among the advert model. Think more deeply than "they pay the most for this". They (niche companies) pay the most because their target market is small and nobody outside of specific customers search for or see those products.

>>62197294
I feel no pity for people comfortable using Google's advertising model. That said, you are right that it isn't the way to go.

>https://keywordseverywhere.com/
^This will estimate how much your search will cost per click. Stuff like "Car Insurance" will cost 42 bucks per click.

File: trne1496095354963.jpg (118KB, 460x562px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 460x562px

I'll just politely remind everyone that any company that gets indirectly hit by this operation is as guilty as google is. They are the enablers of google's data mining, they are as bad or even worse than google. Any company that is dependent on ad revenue deserves to get burned into the ground.

File: dui lawyer.png (23KB, 813x123px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 813x123px

>>62197349
Jackpot!

>>62197349
>Only Google datamines

I don't even want to begin on how retarded you are.

File: IMG_20170831_094215.jpg (85KB, 700x820px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 700x820px

>>62195954
Is waterfox any better or are they on Soros payroll?

>>62197502
Anyone that is advertising on google (the only site I am hitting), is reliant on google's tactics. My goal is not really to hurt them, but I really don't care if they need to get hurt in order to degrade trust in Google. Everyone knows that click fraud is a risk when paying to advertise through google. It's literally warned about when you google "google advertising risks"

>>62197502
Nowhere was that implied if you know how to read you elementary schooler.

>>62197379
I did my part for today. Now do yours!

But better search for your location + DUI lawyer.
So it wont be that obvious for the false click algo.

>>62197665
Afraid not. My location has 0.00 for dui lawyer.

>>62197517
Datamining is everywhere.

>>62196537
So, Facebook will be the first to fall, followed by alphabet.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

>>62197720
But facebook "ads" are clickbait articles and other suggestions, like made up stuff that your friends liked, that aren't even filtered by adblockers.

>>62197717
I'm: >>62196893
The reason I'm targeting google has nothing to do with their ad system.

It's just the most efficient way to effect their bottom line.

File: 02534160481.jpg (38KB, 300x314px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 300x314px

>>62196537
>xbox more profitable than windows

>>62197779
And Xbox has been in the red this gen. By a large margin. I think it might be their worst selling console to date.

>>62193742
Serious question here: what do you propose companies should replace ads with? Everyone is used to the internet being "free" and giving personal info in exchange for using a website.
Should companies just flat out start taking subscription fees for everything? Should 4chan, youtube, facebook, newgrounds etc. etc. all be pay-to-use? I don't mind paying a few cents for a subscription if that means no data harvesting.

>>62197829
Serious answer: I don't mind the ad setup as it is now. What I'm doing to google has nothing to do with their advertising.

>>62197779
Hang yourself, pedo.

>>62197779
>>62197797
>revenue = profit

>>62197829
I've seen people propose different ad networks that don't collect user information, and just paywalls.

2,472 "Auto insurance quote" ads clicked thus far. Estimated at 48.95 per click. And I have the ad clicker set to as low as possible.

>>62197946
Or maybe "pay per purchase." I mean, that should be the absolute worst case scenario, as this would still require data mining, but it would also harm google's clout quite a bit.

File: anti-adblock-killer-icon.png (2KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 128x128px

ultimate nauseatard BTFO: why would i waste my cpu time and internet bandwidth on literal crap, when i can block the shit out of everything and click away from hard paywalls, and get literally the exact same experience? we've already established i don't give a shit so why should i care about your dumb philosophy, all i want is my web page without nine billion flashing popups and that's what i get

>>62197962
You obviously care enough to write a wall of text bitching about the thread. But hey, whatever floats your boat. I wouldn't push anyone to do anything they don't want to do.

File: 1473851095215.jpg (68KB, 410x410px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 410x410px

>>62193884
>>62195400
>>62195506
>clickrate above 50%

You guys were blacklisted after just a few clicks. Change IP and start over with a 10-20% clickrate at random intervals between 60-120 seconds.

Google has been battling clickfraud for an eternity. Don't make it so easy for them.

>>62197962
then keep blocking ads and fuck off

>>62197978
thats literally what i have, it was just random coincidence that i have click rate higher
>>62195506

>>62197779
i just installed windows 10 on a normies computer without activating and it doesn't look like microsoft is going to do anything about it so there is your explanation

>>62197829
You must be seriously new to the internet to think that internet is free because of ads.

>>62198009
Should lower the bar just a few notches anyway. As long as it's above 50%, there's almost a 100% certainty of being blacklisted.

Nobody except Google knows where the exact limit goes, but it's safe to assume that it's lower than 50%.

>>62197829
I don't care, that is their problem. Most of the websites I use are either set up by a hobbyist or are donation powered anyways, let the others make paywalls if they need it. Internet shouldn't be freely accessible by normalfags, If they want to trash up the internet with their normalshit they should pay up. Paywalls would revive the warez scene to their glory days, I would gladly welcome that. We need to revert back to the old days.

>>62193771
To fight the jew, we must understand the jew. We can ill afford another Google.

>>62197962
This is mainly about actively damaging ad networks, If you are happy with the status quo then please fuck off.

>>62198024
For most of these sites, it is. They're businesses that need to have an income. The only income they have is ads, it's what they're based around. Obviously there can exist sites and internet without ads, but the majority of things are subsidized by ads.

>>62198051
>The only income they have is ads
Disgusting. Let them burn, they deserve it.

>>62198051
Ads is what brought normies like you online and allowed you to destroy the internet.

You and your small business dedicated to yak fetish pornography can fuck right off and open a corner store.

>>62198075
>Ads is what brought normies like you
What the fuck makes you think I'm a normie? I'm just stating how most of the current internet works, which was apparently unclear.

>>62198086
>how most of the current internet works

And most of the current internet needs to die.

>>62198093
Can you just answer the question?

>>62198051
My father owns a business and a website. Care to guess how he pays for the server? WITH HIS OWN HARD FUCKING EARNED MONEY.

>>62198086
Your answer was unrelated to the previous anon's statement that the internet used to be NOT ad based. What you described is how most websites operate now, and honestly this ad model needs to die.

>>62198099
What makes me think you're a normie? I already answered that indirectly.

You're defending the cancer that is destroying the internet.

>>62198112
>the previous anon's statement that the internet used to be NOT ad based.
What? No, the original statement was that the internet is free because of ads, not what it used to be. The second statement is as well, as is my statement. Where the fuck did you insert this past tense? It was always about the current system.
>>62198128
>You're defending the cancer that is destroying the internet.
That's where you're wrong then. I don't like the ad economy either with clickbait bullshit being the main driver for articles.

>>62197951
>48.95 per click

lmoa that's only if you actually purchase insurance

>>62198205
No, Google doesn't charge "per purchase." They charge Per Click.

>>62198237
no one is paying $50 for your clicks

look up the difference between CPC, CPA, and CPR

>>62193742
I use AdBlock, so this "worse Internet" you talk about doesn't affect me. So, why should I care?

File: cpc.png (14KB, 842x92px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 842x92px

>>62198364
Not him, but pic related.

File: 781400589485.jpg (35KB, 563x548px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 563x548px

well i had to delete ads in vault because there was too much of them and addon stopped clicking, i think its because adnau only click ads once and if you download them again it wont click

File: 1381964135604.png (139KB, 294x256px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 294x256px

It's simple math. People who advertise calculate that x% of people who click on ads will become clients.

To use some fictional numbers.
>Car salesman Joe in Texas needs customers
>Joe estimates that 25% of people who click on his ads will end up buying a car
>Joe makes an average profit of $1000 per car he sells
>Joe sees that the price to advertise under the keyword "Buy car texas" is $100 per click
>Joe now knows that he will need 4 clicks on average to gain 1 customer
>Joe pays $400 for ads in order to profit $1000 on a sale
>At the end of the day Joe is happy with his $600 profit

There are auctions for keywords, so Joe and every other car salesman in the area are competing against one another, and are willing to cut some of the profit because $600 is better than $0.

This is basic fucking business strategy, you mong.

>>62195453
thats basically most of 4chan users
so google is just getting accurate data

so if I set adnauseam to always click ads, then I might as well no use it because I'll be blacklisted?

>>62196629
I'm not anti-ad, I'm anti-Google

>>62196313
Ive been considering getting a vpn, but I dont have a lot of money. Are any of the freebies worth it? Im in canada

File: 81494770418245220.jpg (1MB, 1688x2535px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1688x2535px

any way to run this on a headless server?

File: california.png (12KB, 822x79px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 822x79px

>>62199629
I wouldn't bother paying to fuck google. Just use a free extension with a throwaway email account.

Heading to bed, leaving up the most expensive search I've found so far.

>>62193850
So what's a better alternative?

>>62199675
>almost $400
dear god, click it

File: Mark-Cuban.jpg (63KB, 700x425px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x425px

>>62196607

>paying for advertising that is known and proven not to work due to adblockers/fake ad clickers

if you do this, your business deserves to fail. Door-to-door sales is better and more reliable than this shit.

>>62199710
Alternative to what? Just don't use ads, plain and simple.

>>62197829
I don't give a fuck if the internet dies, like 99% of it is trash (including this site).

>>62199728
To finance websites, specially little ones.

>>62200058
what does this site offer?

>>62200058
if you can't finance it then don't do it

>>62200058
Sell a product. Whether its a review of something with an Amazon affiliate link (or something similar), or a subscription to something you find entertaining (a la patreon), there are ways to monetize that has nothing to do with ads. Go check out Mister Metokur's patreon. He has never, and will never (or so he says) put an ad on top of one of his videos.

>>62200084
This. I run a low-traffic website (~3k uniques/month) with no ads and I only pay $15/month to do so.

>>62200104
Not to mention if it's bandwidth heavy, like say, a podcast that you host on your own server or something (like Stefan Molymeme), you could insert ads into the podcast itself. Annoying, but no ad blocker in the world is gonna stop it.

>he still uses ad blockers


I approach this differently. There are a few use cases I go to the web for. For each use case that is not a free browsing I create an electron app, that never executes any code from the web or uses any external style. It only uses XHR to fetch html pages/json data/other static stuff and then transforms that data and uses it in the custom UI designed for the use case.

For example one use case is collection of news. My app looks almost like a typical RSS feed reader, except that article content is full and interactive. I can inline stupid image galleries that break article flow, I can convert custom video players into a simple <video> tag, I can drop what I don't care for. I can switch between tor/non-tor mode in a secure way that doesn't leak anything and is probably more secure than torbrowser.

I have direct access to any OS programs, so I can easily open m3u8 videos in mpv player on one click or using a keyboard shortcut, or I can download streaming videos locally and convert them to mp4 on the fly, save useful content of the pages to the database, including relevant images, etc.

All JS code is controlled by me, web servers serve me only as data sources.

What is key to make this fun and useful is structuring the app as a unified UI for multiple data sources and to be able to define data sources quickly. Fortunately ES6 generators can be used in a way that makes fetching and transforming data without the need for callbacks, or promises very easy and clear. Adding a new source is usually a matter of minutes.

It is also nice that when improving the UI, I get a new feature for all the websites that I frequent at once.

It allows me to consume content the way I want, without much exposure to tracking. All the website gets from me is an access_log entry, no cookies, nothing.

I'd say I'm quite ahead of the "war" between users and advertising networks.

File: 55500564328542.jpg (28KB, 388x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 388x500px

>>62201564

>>62201564
How long and what do I need to learn to achieve this wizardry? Is knowing js/html/css and taking some electron framework tutorials enough? What you've described seems the only solution to the current web2/3 bullshit that no single browser can handle. Many bigger websites should be their own standalone desktop applications and all the minor websites are just fancy linked documents.

>>62199723
this

File: 1443795109561.jpg (72KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 400x400px

>>62201564
great work anon

File: file.png (907KB, 951x998px) Image search: [Google]

907KB, 951x998px

>>62193884

>>62201564
>autism
hope you're heavily medicated for the most of the day.
ps: go back to plebbit

>>62202961
bretty gud anon.

If advertising companies are trying to ban your anti-ad addon, it means it's working.

>>62201564
You have won the internet itself good anon.

>>62193742
AdNauseam would damage advertisers only if a big portion of normies have it installed which they can't be bothered nor want to learn how to install it. My suggestion is, if you really want to watch the advertising industry burn, then package AdNauseam into a "malware" which will install itself on normies' browsers.

>>62203288
you might be a D&C shill, or you might be onto something.

How can I get adnauseum to work with Brave on iOS?

>>62203288
retards from /g/ will just install it on every laptop they get for repairs, thats a good start. doing it a malware will just destroy everything

File: 785A1809-F063-4D94-A26F-3134225B6504.jpg (32KB, 501x391px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 501x391px

>>62196629
I remember the internet when websites were created by the common man. If you weren’t intelligent enough to build and host your own website then your opinions existed for only a brief moment in a chat room or by email. The internet had far more content back then, real content with original ideas. Now everything exists on a select few websites controlled by the jewish global elite. We must crush google and restore the internet to how it was in the 90s.

>>62203394
I guess, but companies will treat AdNauseam like malware regardless eventually, it's going to have to be forked and renamed every once in a while.

>>62203401
Not just that.

Computers were expensive and nogs weren't on the internet.

It was necessary to make it simple so nogs could accept it.

>>62203416
but theres a difference between shill sperging its a malware and antiviruses actually acting like it is one

File: 1483124123633.jpg (22KB, 523x523px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 523x523px

>>62193742

> Let's fight ads
> By installing an addon that literally clicks on every ad it sees

Fucking brilliant work there mate 11/10

File: 1453260399693.jpg (90KB, 813x555px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 813x555px

>>62203214
Good goy, any attempt at fixing the web is bad!

Because it IS malware and it doesn't actually accomplish anything for you personally.

People are manipulating you like the angry retard you are and getting you to do shit they benefit from.

File: 1481741820583.png (495KB, 1070x601px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1070x601px

>>62203543
brilliant post, total made me uninstall this >malware

>>62203602

>brilliant post

thanks I worked really hard on it

>>62203590
https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam
show code that is malware. considering you are a tripfag you must be someone special on /g/ so this shouldnt be hard at all for you

>>62196629
Actually 4chan passes are extremely profitable. The Australian guy the did the SQL injection leaked it a while ago.

>>62203657
You don't need to even read the code, the programs actual purpose alone is the definition of malware.

You are just extremely ignorant and being manipulated into what amounts to vandalism so that someone can try to dip into Google's add profits through blackmail.

File: 3178363105504995.jpg (50KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 400x300px

>>62203701
so you cant, not like i even care about your hot opinion

>>62203724
Strawmanning dipshit.
If you weren't such an introverted piece of shit I bet you would be out screaming at Trump supporters with a mask on.

>>62203701
If by malware you mean the same thing as the palememe manchild did by saying "it's mallware because its a program with malicious intent towards ad network", then please remove yourself from the species you fucking retard.

>>62203768
What the fuck else could I possibly fucking mean by calling it malware?

>>62203701
>muh vandalism
t. google employee

>>62203288
so keep telling normies to install it! install it on the machines of your parents and family members!

>>62195904
Why won't Google just block every chrome with adnauseum plugin from entering AI? Would they really gives a shit about the tiny part of chrome/ad users who use adnauseum?

>>62203790
The word "malware" is usually used from the perspective of the user, not other 3rd parties like you tripfag kike would like. AdNauseam is beneficial for the user, hence it's not malware. If anything, it's anti-malware, because it's designed to damage the distributors of real malware: ad companies. Any advertisement or tracking script is by definition malware, because it's harmful from the perspective of the user. Companies that create and the website that enable them spreading malware should be removed from the internet.

>>62203871
No its quite literally malware, you are under the false impression that malware you intentionally install and are aware of somehow makes it not malware.

>>62203913
It's literally not. The program doesn't harm the user in any way whatsoever. You're just trying to spread FUD.

now why in the FUCK would i install something that intentionally LOADS ads?

>>62203936
I'm not spreading fud, its an immature perspective that you hold and you are relying on rhetoric and polarizing warped viewpoints with no basis in reality to try and get other people to join into your psuedo vandalism so you can feel a little less alone while you think about killing yourself because you are a bitter angry piece of shit.

>>62204009
Yes you are spreading fud and you have literally no other arguments than ad hominems, pathetic.

File: bullshit.jpg (21KB, 584x350px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 584x350px

>>62204029
enjoy your malware

>>62204048
It doesn't harm the user.

>>62203936
>not filtering the tripautist
you're using 4chan the wrong way

>>62204029
I'm not spreading fear, uncertainty, or doubt.

Peddling this stupid malware shit is quite literally FUD against ad services.

I bet you refused to answer when your mother called you as a kid and then spent all day rationalizing it while you tried to distract yourself from how much of a piece of shit you were with the toys she bought you.

>>62196537
alphabet+fb= le cancer

File: trashman6.png (591KB, 778x1018px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 778x1018px

>>62204084
>defending the cancer known as ad-based companies
opinion discarded

>>62193742
how do we start an agenda of people who have been demonetized by youtube to advertise adnauseam in their video titles?

>>62204132
I'm not defending ad service companies, I'm saying being a vindictive shit and justifying it either means you are ignorant and being manipulated, or just a maladjusted with no healthy outlet for your aggression.

Quite literally the only reason I can see for doing something like this is because you profited from ads and then were cut off, making it a retribution thing.

Even then it isn't morally justifiable, you/they made their own bed and they can lay in it.

>>62204167
>how do we start an agenda of people who have been demonetized by youtube to advertise adnauseam in their video titles?
FUCK! What a brilliant idea!

We need to message all the channels that have been demonetized.

>>62203543
>mate
fuck off mohammed

>>62204341
I saw this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkVn1lzcK70

its been in my suggestions for ages but just recently they've modified the title to say they've been demonetized.

Ill message him now

>>62204167
That is genius.

We found our new DLC goys.

>blocking ads doesn't work
No I'm pretty sure my ublock origin gets rid of almost all those ugly ads

>>62204503
it protec but it dont attac

>>62204460
Can anyone else help me message youtubers? the basic idea is " fight demonetization with adversitation of Adnauseam"

>>62204735
I'm pretty sure the "block" in adblock implies defense. Not to mention ublock origin literally has a shield as its logo. I'm fine with ad attackers being a separate thing but saying ad blockers don't work because they don't attack is retarded.

File: 1502692044446.jpg (315KB, 2554x1436px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 2554x1436px

>>62204735
well said m8 friend, i really like you

File: kep.png (200KB, 1366x728px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1366x728px

Any tips?

File: 1504010020904.png (205KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 500x333px

>>62205223
set clicking to sometimes or lower, you will get blacklisted

>>62205148
Some say burying your head in sand also works. It is not a question of definition of the word, but a decision that defines what you are.

>>62205161
:3

>>62205259
any suggested rate I should set it to?
Should I reset this VM?

>>62205311
You're a child of you believe you're doing any sort of damage or """war""" to duh ebil Google.

The antifa of technology

>>62205314
Often suggested 10-50%, adjust accord to your bandwidth or if you are playing videogaems I suppose

>>62205314
10%-50%, depends on how much you hate google. clearing cookies and history in ff is enough, dont forget to restart it because ff caches cookies, deleting them wont actually clear them from memory

>>62205347
It's a VM running on my laptop, don't really care about bandwidth either

>>62205353
Coolio. Should I mess with about:config, or everything being default is cool?

>>62193742
what does adnauseam do for me exactly? i installed it because you said so.

>>62205382
Chrome?

>>62205382
i use default settings in my vm, i dont care much about privacy in virtual machine, im not logged there in any google service or anything

File: Brown haired girl at computer confused sweating question marks.jpg (166KB, 1240x1280px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1240x1280px

>clicking on "Settings" and "View Ad Vault" within the extension do fucking nothing
Why is it so broken? Last time this happened (day 1 install) I had to reinstall it and then it worked. Now I've tried reinstalling it at least 10 times and it still won't work. I can get to my settings through Waterfox's Add-ons page, but I can't see the Ad Vault no matter what I do. Help?

>>62205417
>AdNauseam?

AdNauseam is a privacy tool that protects you from Google stalking. It also works as an ad blocker.

It works by clicking on every ads in a secure background process. This obfuscates the user data secretly collected about you thereby protecting your privacy. Optionally it also blocks ads from appearing similarly to any other ad blockers.

It also has a secondary effect of generating many clicks Google will have to refund to the advert placing companies, however this effect is not by design but simply a result of Google adopting a flawed model. The more people use AdNauseam, the more Google will have to refund, and the more exposed the flaws of the Google's advertising model to companies. Metaphorically it is a privacy tool that protect and also attack.

Therefore many people discontent with the constant and invasive surveillance are starting to use AdNauseam, as ad blocker, and as a method of voicing their concern to Google.

This whole thing is actually genius. The plug-in itself is totally legal. It has a completely legitimate use, that is to protect against Google's tracking. Because of greed, Google knowingly accepts the risk of selling click counts, a technically flawed concept. AdNauseam is a completely and totally waterproof method of making Google suffer the full consequence of something that is sententiously born from their evil tracking as well as the flawed commercial model of greed. This is some next level golden weapon of mass destruction that they cannot counter. This kills Google dead. It is super effective. That is why the shilling is off the charts. That is why this is so beautiful.


Further backgrounds:

https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-issuing-refunds-to-advertisers-over-fake-traffic-plans-new-safeguard-1503675395

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud

>>62205448
>>62205448
neato

now that i heard the pros. what are the cons?

>>62205446
Is it enabled?

>>62195370
We know, it motivates us more.

>>62205501
Of course it's enabled. Even if it was disabled I should still be able to click on both of those buttons and have something happen.

>>62205499
No cons. It works the same as any ad blocker if you want it to.

>>62205499
if you are a shill then all pros are cons

>>62195954
Isn't that project run by an SJW furfag?

>>62196217
>Kill all nauseum shills.
Golly Shlomo, this has you bothered.

>>62205519
Try deleting your browser profile completely

Backup your stuff of course

>>62205343
It doesn't hurt to try.

>>62196554
>google is just going to find an even more intrusive way to do advertisements
We actually want this to happen. Every site that partners with Google should irritate the living fuck out of normies. The more they drive normies away, the more mindshare they lose.

Literally we win either way.

>>62205499
>what are the cons?
It basically leaks your IP

File: kep.png (52KB, 422x407px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 422x407px

>>62205430
This lookin good?

>>62196629
We'll just go back to Usenet or use Urbit or something.

Literally port 80 isn't the whole Internet.

File: 1446065527397.png (34KB, 221x235px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 221x235px

>>62205688 (checked mein fuhrer)
lookin gooood

>>62205311
Nigga I don't care, I'd rather deal with having to block some shitty ads then have to pay for literally everything. Ad block lets me have free shit without having to look at ugly ads, that's good enough for me.

>>62205923
Nobody said that you should stop blocking ads. Not only should you block ads, but it would be also nice to strike back against the ad networks, don't you think? That' the whole point of AdNauseam: to not only block ads but also hurt the companies that depend on the ads.

>>62206283
>but it would be also nice to strike back against the ad networks, don't you think?
Not him, but clearly not. I agree with the view that it's better to have ads fund the majority of the internet, by leeching off of people that don't block shit, so that I can view free shit. The alternative (paying for everything) sounds worse to me.

>>62206548
your free shit is coming to an end, google is releasing their own ad blocker that will kill porn sites, thats a real problem that ublock will not solve, either we kill them or they will kill internet as we know

>>62206548
Yeah this is what I was getting ad

>>62206585
>google is releasing their own ad blocker that will kill porn sites
What the fuck? All that will do is make people switch to google's ads probably. And I don't particularly care for free porn sites. I still see no problem, besides, that's pretty fucking farfetched.

>>62206624
you retarded mate? google will never allow porn ads

>>62206600
at

>>62206548
While I do applaud you and agree with this stance that normalfags should pay for our free stuff, you have to realize that this current balance wont be forever, there is a constant arms race between blocking and delivering ads. We don't know if we will ever have the chance again to hit the ad networks as hard as we can do now. I'd say we should take the chance if we have it. Also I would worry that much about paywalls. The only websites that could pull them off are large normie websites like kikebook. Other useless websites will simply die and useful fringe websites will always find a way.

>>62193742
Honestly I don't see the point of using Adnauseam over Ublock origin since its just wasting your bandwidth and memory by clicking on ads therefore making the site you visit slower to load.

>>62206964
>wasting your bandwidth
ajax requests are like 100 bytes. are you retarded?

>>62205688
Looks good anon! Keep on checking how many shekels you're costing these parasites.