this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
816 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
68244 readers
4141 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.
Thanks for doing your part to spread the truth in this sea of lies and FUD.
It's clear that most people these days are proud consumers with more money than sense. All they care about is looking good in front of their consumerist friends, and they base all of their actions and decisions around what will support that ideology.
As a kid, I thought useful idiots were rare. Now I see it's the exact opposite.
Ah great
Uh, wait a minute. 🤔
Sending a request also uses bandwidth, you know.
A basic GET request, even with a long querystring, will be negligible even on a 1998 dial-up connection.
Right, but thousands of them, possibly every day? Could perhaps affect your data consumption on your phone e.g. 🤷♂️
Edit: I got it guys, thanks.
I don't know of any data plan that limits on the upload. Caps are usually on the download side, and TFA says it does not download the server response.
You aren't terribly familiar with how much traffic we generate nowadays... are you? If we were still on 2G and isdn / dsl sure. You'd likely see a slight latency jump. On anything from this last decade+ ? Not a chance.
I'm not, am I. I hadn't done any calculations regarding this. It was strictly hypothetical, as you can probably tell from the question mark and 🤷♂️. 👍
I'll be honest - you weren't really presenting your case in that way. Understand my confusion: you seemed pretty adamant about your concern with no backing data on it. Most people pick their hills with something to back them.
It's not really a hill for me to begin with lol.
That's kind of my point - just based on the reception it's clear that a number of people were perceiving that as one. Normally that's the "pump the brakes" or the "hol up 🖐️🖐️" moment where you clarify.
Gotcha. 👉👉
collapsed inline media
Okay, fine, not enough to matter. Are you satisfied with that?
Jesus, you got defensive quick and hard. Sorry I rustled you.
https://lemmy.world/comment/16187642
🤷♂️
lol
furthermore: lmao.
you've got to try a lot harder to "rustle" me, but I like your moxie for thinking you did, sport
doing the math, even the cheapest phone plans that don't explicitly exclude data, nowadays include at least 1GB of data for free. Usually more. Almost any reachable amount of outbound requests to click on ads would barely put a dent in your data allowance.
You definitely seem rustled.
if you say so, whatever makes you happy.
Now the name calling. Cool, dude.
I'll concede the data plan dent thing; I hadn't done any math regarding that. Thanks for clarifying that to me and everyone else!
But you did say "none" so I just pointed out the fact that it's not none. It's some. I wasn't wrong to point that out. No matter how much of a stickler you find me for that.
But that's no reason to post images implicitly depicting me to be some kind of fat nerd.
You're a rude person. Autistic or not.
I accept your concession, better luck next time.
pedantry is pedantry, if you interject with "well ACKSHUALLY" over literally a couple kilobytes of data in this, the Year Of Our Lord 2025 where common storage device sizes are in the multiple terabyte range, and 100mbps down/10 up is exceedingly common, expect to be called one. It is functionally none, because it is not 1993.
can't even come up with your own insult for me, just gonna steal that sad attempt at bait from the other guy? how... underwhelming, must do better. 🤡
Huh?
K.
Those are your words, not mine. 😛
I was talking about data sent over a network, not stored on disk. 🤷♂️
My god. I'm not "out to get you" here, this isn't Reddit, will you fucking relax, dude? I thought you said that you were autistic? Maybe I misinterpreted you. Maybe it was someone else.
All good now? Ready to drop the insults? ❤️
"I have drawn YOU as the soyjack and ME as the chad, therefore you lose the argument"
Are you autistic?
Yeah.
Is that a fucking problem?
It is when you're being rude for no reason.
Using autistic as a derogatory slur is rude for no reason.
Okay? I didn't do that to you. But you were being rude to me for no reason.
Edit: You're not the same person. Sorry. But my point holds.
what a rude thing to say, especially considering I wasn't talking to you.
I'm gonna keep it that way, best of luck baiting someone else champ.
I mean, that image is pretty rude, too.
lol I know right.
That HTTP request would also show up in the advertisers web logs with your origin IP address.
I think we're far past caring about a website logging an IP address.
I'm past caring about giving my IP to a website that I want to use, but what this is doing is handing out your information to every single advertiser that is published on any page you visit. In some cases this plugin would match the definition of "leaking personal data".
You do you though. I won't stop you.
Most people dont have static IPs. All the ads would see is web requests from random residential ips from a certain country.
When was the last time you checked the length of your DHCP lease?
Every 10,000 miles. Or after you hit 40. Before putting it on?
Shit. I know this one... uh...
I don't know about NZ (or wherever you are), but IP addresses for residential access in the US don't really change all that much. It's... concerning.
so use a VPN? if you're the sort of user using AdNauseam, and is concerned about tracking, you're probably also the sort of user who already uses a VPN.
I'm behind SEVEN proxies!
What are they going to do? blacklist me and stop serving me ads?
Oh no
If you care about your information and privacy, why are you giving them your information for nothing?
You do have a point, but... It's not for nothing. It's to hurt the predatory ad industry. And what you give up isn't much: your IP address and likely the referral (so they know you visited website X that was serving their ad). It's up to you to decide whether that's an acceptable privacy cost to conduct this kind of guerilla ad warfare.
It would be cool if it could somehow integrate to a VPN and only do that while the VPN is active. I don't think it's possible, though.
edit: Just found out from their FAQ:
Potentially possible, but I agree, likely not worth the effort.
Yeah, I can't find an answer whether the "click" is behind some obfuscation, or if the "click every ad" is the obfuscation step itself by attempting to poison the data. The latter may work but yes, may actually increase tracking. Wish that answer wasn't so hard to find on their site.
Did you look at the FAQ?
https://github.com/dhowe/adnauseam/wiki/FAQ#how-does-adnauseam-click-ads
Thanks, I didn't see this, there was a different embedded FAQ that didn't have the specific Q & A below.
But, if anything, it seems to confirm the ad itself is just legitimately clicked from the user's IP address and hidden from the user, and that there is code execution protection, but not that there is any privacy protection? It's still very ambiguous.
Also wouldn't this be directing a ton of money to google? (or I guess any other ad provider)
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.
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
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.