It looks like Google are pushing pretty hard on AdBlockers now. Looks like a pretty aggressive new UI from them.

I’m finding revanced for Android is still working well, but I’ve got no idea when that’ll become less reliable

adblock

  •  Granite   ( @Granite@kbin.social ) 
    14•1 year ago

    And this is why Google removed Ad Nauseam from being a legit chrome extension, because it blocks ads and also silently clicks on every one, ruining Goole’s data.

    That being said, idk how safe it is if it does click on every ad. It probably is, but I’d have to do more research.

    •  Copperhead   ( @Copperhead@kbin.social ) 
      10•1 year ago

      I had no clue of the existence of the Ad Nauseam browser extension. I use Firefox and I just added it to my browser.

      I read that it’s built off of uBlock Origin, which I already trust because of the open source nature of it, so that was a huge plus for me.

      It may not necessarily have been your intention to inform people of Ad Nauseam, but I definitely thank you for bringing it up in the first place!

        •  Helldiver_M   ( @Helldiver_M@kbin.social ) 
          4•1 year ago

          It does yes. It also interferes with other privacy related extensions like privacy badger. I have disabled both Ublock Orgin and Privacy Badger in favor of AdNauseam and have been pleased. After using it for about a week, it says I’ve “clicked” on about $150 worth of ads.

          The main thing to note is if you’re on a site, and you see ads, you can always flip AdNauseam into “strict” mode. In strict mode, it is less effective at clicking on ads, but better at making sure nothing pops up. There’s only one site that I’ve had to use strict mode on so far. Attached image is of my “ad vault” (the ads that have been clicked). I did hide the NSFW ads:

            •  Helldiver_M   ( @Helldiver_M@kbin.social ) 
              3•1 year ago

              From the persepctive of the host site, maybe. But for the advertisers, AdNauseam punishes them pretty badly. The idea is to destroy the relationship between the “click through rate” and “conversion rate” of offending sites/ads.

              The linked article discusses the phenomena in more detail, but the bottom line is that advertisers want sales. If their ads don’t get sales on a certain platform, they will no longer advertise on said platform.

              I’ve also attached a screenshot of the relevant part of the article.
              https://www.wordstream.com/average-ctr

              That’s without even considering how this screws up the data that organizations like Google are trying to track. That data is worth something to them, and this obfuscates it.

              •  JickleMithers   ( @JickleMithers@kbin.social ) 
                2•1 year ago

                he idea is to destroy the relationship between the “click through rate” and “conversion rate” of offending sites/ads.

                Ah, I didn’t think of this part. I was going of off click through rate but didn’t think about it destroying the conversion rate

    •  Helldiver_M   ( @Helldiver_M@kbin.social ) 
      3•1 year ago

      Just to clarify, AdNauseam doesn’t click on every ad. Certainly not by default. I’ve noticed that while it does hide ads embedded in YouTube videos, it doesn’t seem to click them often. (Though, it does still click on image based ads on YouTube).

      Additionally, by default AdNauseam does not click on ads that are “do not track” (DNT) compliant, an emerging standard set by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I’ll link to the GitHub FAQ post the devs made regarding why they, by default, don’t click DNT compliant ads.

      https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#how-and-why-does-adnauseam-make-exceptions-for-non-tracking-ads