this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
137 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

104 readers
2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There's an unwritten deal, you know. Youtube lets us block and in return, we allow Youtube to know we block. Because if we take that away from Youtube, Youtube no longer has reliable viewer statistics and the price of their ads will go down.

Now it seems Youtube wants to break the deal (and they can, unless we start pirating Youtube content, they can at the very least make us sit through a minute of black screen before each video). They probably think the damage that will be done is less than the additional income that the subscriptions generate.

it's just the same old story. Grow, grow, grow, wait until you've got a monopoly, now squeeeeeeeeze the profit.

Twitter, Reddit, now Youtube. Welcome to the age of enshittification.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you know if it interferes with unlock origin?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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:

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

One thing that worries me about this approach is that it's still generating ad revenue. Sure you don't actually see the ads but it's still an incentive for companies to continue running more and more ads.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

But they’re not making the company paying for the ads any profit. It’s a money sink for them. But you’re correct in that whoever is hosting the ads will make their coin.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Twitter, Reddit, now Youtube. Welcome to the age of enshittification.

That's how end of Web 2.0 looks like. It really lived a long life, maybe even too long.