At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised?
AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money. Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense.
There is even a method to install it directly[1] which AFAIK Google has not blocked.
Granted, if Google were not both running the browser and the ad network, these actions probably wouldn't have been taken. But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top.
> But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top.
This is the exact sort of thing anti-monopoly laws are intended to work against: that a major market force in one market uses that power to intrude or support itself in another market. Since Google Chrome undoubtedly has a sufficiently large market share that this may be a concern and the removal of this extension certainly affects the advertisement market, this seems like a very dangerous move for Google.
Yes, it may be considered “self-defense” but is the cost incurred really so large that they want to risk another lawsuit?
Google HAS to block this and prevent it from ever being run if it can, its click fraud plain and simple and they've been stung too many times with huge bills for fraud it could have prevented and didn't.
I'm not surprised either, and I might do the same if I were Google, but "Tyrannical" does feel like an appropriate word given they are using their multi-industry monopolies to crush threats.
No (it doesn't surprise me). I figured it would be banned at some point, it is essentially click fraud but with a (noble?) purpose. And once it reaches enough critical mass to be annoying (and by annoying I mean interfering with other analytics) it would be dealt with.
I certainly resonate with the issue of advertising getting ridiculous (and love Troy Hunt's response) but don't begrudge Google their right to not help people mess with their income stream.
1. Does a user searching without paying not cost Google's money?
2. Does a user using Chrome for free not cost Google's money?
3. They even built Chrome to boost advertising ecosystem.
4. Is there any law or ToS said users are not allowed to use a script to click the ads automatically? Are the advertising companies going to spy on me to check if I'm using a script?
5. Advertising surveillance directly violates my online privacy. Yet, "by using our services, you are agreed to our terms and conditions"
You're being imprecise - it doesn't cost Google money, it is advertisers who are losing money in this case.
Of course, in the long run, if clicking ads gets popular as a trend among adblocking tools, it can influence the whole industry, and Google will earn less money. This is not the same thing, though.
Few month ago we developed and launched an AI-based AdBlocker (called AdFilter) and also had several problems with Google Chrome Web Store. Almost every week they had a "strange reason" to remove our extension from the Google Chrome Web Store.
We had more than 380,000 DAU (Daily Active Users) from 36 countries with all good feedbacks on Google Chrome Web Store, but even so, Google always tried to find a way to get us delisted and sometimes removed... they called it "an automated review process that is not performed by humans".
Every time this happened we need to send several messages to all available email address to get our extension approved and listed again in 24-48 hours. After facing this kind of situation more than 12 times, we simply gave up and remembered that it's not worth trying to build a business (or App) on top 3rd party company, like Google or FB.
I'm surprised people still use Chrome and not Chromium. Perhaps a few devs in your situation could improve the Chromium installation flow for Windows, etc.
Google doesn't have much incentive to make it easy, but third parties (like Debian) do, and do a lot of the heavy lifting on an ongoing basis.
> Hopefully you can see where I'm going... whatever's written in the policy is difficult to enforce literally. Someone has to make the distinction based upon the intent of that policy. A person has to draw the line. If Google have made the decision based on that policy, well that's their decision.
> Reading https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose (part 4) makes me thinking "disrupting ad networks" could be that single purpose. Then it'd cover blocking & clicking. Just like "Office Online"'s "edit office documents" covering both "word processing" and "spreadsheets".
Hey man, I think your discussion points finally reached the real reason why "single use policy" applies differently for Office Online than it does to AdNauseum. AdNauseam team are intelligent and they probably realize it as well. In their self-description:
> AdNauseam, a not-for-profit, research-based privacy tool, hides and clicks every tracking ad that it identifies in order to resist the opaque collection, analysis and monetization of private user data, and to challenge the intrusive and unethical business model that currently dominates the web.
Ital. gives you the justification Google could use to block the product. "Disrupting Ad Networks" is the single purpose, but while "Ad Blockers" are a simple nuisance to Ad Networks and 3rd party revenue streams, "Ad Obfuscators" poses a threat to affiliate marketers and resellers who may interact through Google's channels.
(In my opinion.....) Is AdNauseum justified in their work? ABSOLUTELY YES. But there are other hands at play. This also explains why Google is working so hard to block updating or new installs of it.
It's pretty simple: this has to be wreaking havoc with Adsense - depleting ad budgets, artificially inflating CTRs, and giving website owners revenue they didn't earn. This extension also exposes website owners to unfair Adsense bans for generating high numbers of invalid clicks, which can cost them two months of revenue that is almost always withheld when Google bans a site. So by using this you could be costing someone (your favorite blogger etc.) their livelihood.
If you are going to block ads, block them. Don't click on them.
Neither you nor Google has any right, morally or legally, to tell me what to do with the content that Google willingly served to my personal property (my computer). Once those electrons cross that boundry from <Google's property> to <my property> they lose any and all control (although of course in reality they try their damnedest to retain it).
If Google wants to wholesale block all IPs that cause them a problem with click fraud that's their prerogative, but manipulating the electrons that very safely reside within my own private property and then turning around and continuing to serve me ads is something straight out of a Dickens novel and I shudder to think of what happens after the second chapter.
No privacy/security/adblocking user should use Chrome; it's a browser made the company you block ads from and tracks you whether or not the ads are there. Use Firefox, Safari, open source chromium, MS Edge, or anything else, just not Chrome.
Also a Safari extension would be very nice.
I always thought Stallman's ideas were _too_ crazy. Until I struggled with Chrome for 10 minutes trying (and failing) to install this extension in a way that wouldn't bother me. And then I realised that Chrome is dictating what can I do on _my_ computer and what I can't.
This year I will try to fix the rough edges in any FF plugins I use instead of switching back to Chrome.
Not that I'm really surprised by Google's action, but "fraud" is a pretty strong word for what's happening, and pretty disingenuous IMO. No one's pretending to be anyone they're not.
Can someone explain what the point of silently clicking the ads is? Why not just block them? Does clicking the ads somehow aid in blocking or is it a way of fighting back against perceived abuses by advertisers?
It's impossible to block all ads and trackers, especially now that so many people load vital resources from CDNs controlled by the tracking companies. With something like AdNauseam you add noise to your actual browsing so that it makes the data about you less valuable. If everyone were to use it suddenly no one would pay for the data and since it's no longer profitable it would stop. At least, I assume that's the theory.
Advertising networks create profiles of users based on online activity including searches. It's called profiling. The ads you see are relevant to your interests as it is described in your profile. By randomly clicking on ads you render the profile irrelevant.
Wikipedia summarizes fruad as "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right." The user does not unlawfully gain and the ad provider doesn't have a legal right that's being infringed on here.
Some legal resource I found online says that in the US fraud requires: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. [1] Note that "material fact" here is a legally significant phrase, and implies a written agreement or some other mutually agreed to terms that establish the expectation - which never happened between you and the ad provider.
No matter how you slice it the user of ad nauseum is not committing fraud. This misinformation needs to stop.
Thanks, Google. I'd never heard of this extension before now and had often wondered in the past why no one had thought of this strategy to screw with online tracking and data collection. The free PR is great, and now AdNauseam has another new user. :)
Because Google is not "the man" in this scenario that you're sticking it to - it's the website owner whose content you're consuming. Google gets paid either way, and AdNauseam is pennies on their dollar. Webmaster however, depend on advertising revenue to keep publishing.
Well, I just spent the the past hour or so installing Firefox, setting it up with my preferences/imported bookmarks/extensions, and uninstalling Chrome.
In the grand scheme of things, I know it probably won't make a difference, but I still recommend anyone else who is angry about this to do the same. It at least gives you some satisfaction in taking back a little bit of personal control from Google.
Yeah I just installed it as well and it's fun seeing all of the content that gets clicked on. Searching on Google shows at least 15 ads clicked/blocked. No wonder they hate this extension!
On the brighter side, AdNauseam got a lot of publicity due to the ban and will get even more. AdNauseam got acknowledged by Google as being dangerous to their business model. This fact is very good, in my opinion.
Personally, I first heard about this extension a month ago and didn't pay much attention to it then. Now I want to install it.
By clicking on the ads automatically, it seems like Adnauseum actually supports the underlying website (which earns $$) while also performing the function of muBlock. It is currently the best of both worlds!
I would like an AdNauseum type interface for video.
> By clicking on the ads automatically, it seems like Adnauseum actually supports the underlying website (which earns $$) while also performing the function of muBlock
That theory works until someone notices that the extra clicks aren't leading to anything else, complains about click fraud, and then the website is penalized with fines, account suspension, etc. That small site likely won't even have the resources to defense themselves effectively.
There's also an interesting security question: do you really want to automatically click on the next zero-day deployed through an ad network?
If the only reason Google have banned this from the Web Store is because it violates the Single Purpose Policy (https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose) - i.e. Blocking AND Clicking Ads, then an interesting test would be to split the extension in 2 - One extension to block all ads on the page, and one extension to click all ads on the page. And then see if they are then both accepted into the store. And as this is a fork of uBlock, you don't really need the first extension - Why don't they just develop an extension whose single purpose is to click all ads on a page and recommend users also install uBlock?
How confident are people that it's not actually functionally malware?
If it's simulating clicks on every ad, what is its mechanism for protecting a user's client from ad-delivered malware that has now been activated without the user's knowledge?
I find it interesting that this particular Adblocker is being removed, while countless others remain. I suspect that other adblockers like, say, ABP or UBO, are less damaging to the agent fingerprint than an adblocker that clicks everything.
AdNauseam silently clicks the ads as you mention, so they're actively messing with Google's ad statistics. If I was Google, I would consider it an attack too.
[+] [-] Spoom|9 years ago|reply
AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money. Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense.
There is even a method to install it directly[1] which AFAIK Google has not blocked.
Granted, if Google were not both running the browser and the ad network, these actions probably wouldn't have been taken. But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top.
1. https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...
[+] [-] claudius|9 years ago|reply
This is the exact sort of thing anti-monopoly laws are intended to work against: that a major market force in one market uses that power to intrude or support itself in another market. Since Google Chrome undoubtedly has a sufficiently large market share that this may be a concern and the removal of this extension certainly affects the advertisement market, this seems like a very dangerous move for Google.
Yes, it may be considered “self-defense” but is the cost incurred really so large that they want to risk another lawsuit?
[+] [-] ben0x539|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waxim|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rattray|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|9 years ago|reply
I certainly resonate with the issue of advertising getting ridiculous (and love Troy Hunt's response) but don't begrudge Google their right to not help people mess with their income stream.
[+] [-] NoGravitas|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 4684499|9 years ago|reply
1. Does a user searching without paying not cost Google's money?
2. Does a user using Chrome for free not cost Google's money?
3. They even built Chrome to boost advertising ecosystem.
4. Is there any law or ToS said users are not allowed to use a script to click the ads automatically? Are the advertising companies going to spy on me to check if I'm using a script?
5. Advertising surveillance directly violates my online privacy. Yet, "by using our services, you are agreed to our terms and conditions"
[+] [-] cuu508|9 years ago|reply
Instead of playing dirty they could accept the challenge and tweak their click-fraud algorithms.
Reminds me of the joke about Jesus and Moses playing golf.
[+] [-] dvfjsdhgfv|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] menegattig|9 years ago|reply
We had more than 380,000 DAU (Daily Active Users) from 36 countries with all good feedbacks on Google Chrome Web Store, but even so, Google always tried to find a way to get us delisted and sometimes removed... they called it "an automated review process that is not performed by humans".
Every time this happened we need to send several messages to all available email address to get our extension approved and listed again in 24-48 hours. After facing this kind of situation more than 12 times, we simply gave up and remembered that it's not worth trying to build a business (or App) on top 3rd party company, like Google or FB.
[+] [-] arcticfox|9 years ago|reply
Priorities clearly higher in killing ad blockers.
[+] [-] hedora|9 years ago|reply
Google doesn't have much incentive to make it easy, but third parties (like Debian) do, and do a lot of the heavy lifting on an ongoing basis.
[+] [-] pricechild|9 years ago|reply
Not only is it apparently banned from the store, but also it's being removed from existing user's machines, on top of not allowing new installs.
Edit: Going to quote my thread from that discussion as this announcement confirms they were banned over the single use policy...
> Other ad blockers "block ads" and "block annoying eu cookie notices". Should they be removed?
> I just visited the Chrome store and chose the first extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/office-online/ndjp.... It makes word documents AND spreadsheets?!
> Hopefully you can see where I'm going... whatever's written in the policy is difficult to enforce literally. Someone has to make the distinction based upon the intent of that policy. A person has to draw the line. If Google have made the decision based on that policy, well that's their decision.
> Reading https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose (part 4) makes me thinking "disrupting ad networks" could be that single purpose. Then it'd cover blocking & clicking. Just like "Office Online"'s "edit office documents" covering both "word processing" and "spreadsheets".
[+] [-] FilterSweep|9 years ago|reply
> AdNauseam, a not-for-profit, research-based privacy tool, hides and clicks every tracking ad that it identifies in order to resist the opaque collection, analysis and monetization of private user data, and to challenge the intrusive and unethical business model that currently dominates the web.
Ital. gives you the justification Google could use to block the product. "Disrupting Ad Networks" is the single purpose, but while "Ad Blockers" are a simple nuisance to Ad Networks and 3rd party revenue streams, "Ad Obfuscators" poses a threat to affiliate marketers and resellers who may interact through Google's channels.
(In my opinion.....) Is AdNauseum justified in their work? ABSOLUTELY YES. But there are other hands at play. This also explains why Google is working so hard to block updating or new installs of it.
[+] [-] downandout|9 years ago|reply
If you are going to block ads, block them. Don't click on them.
[+] [-] pdeuchler|9 years ago|reply
If Google wants to wholesale block all IPs that cause them a problem with click fraud that's their prerogative, but manipulating the electrons that very safely reside within my own private property and then turning around and continuing to serve me ads is something straight out of a Dickens novel and I shudder to think of what happens after the second chapter.
[+] [-] siegecraft|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abhv|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexpoulsen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smarx007|9 years ago|reply
This year I will try to fix the rough edges in any FF plugins I use instead of switching back to Chrome.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computin...
[+] [-] iUsedToCode|9 years ago|reply
I wish for a more open smartphone ecosystem and better tools for privacy.
[+] [-] m-p-3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Artemis2|9 years ago|reply
https://hn.algolia.com/?query="i%20work%20at%20google"&dateR...
[+] [-] nimbix|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acobster|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xwowsersx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iUsedToCode|9 years ago|reply
They are trying to bring down the price of ads on the internet, thus making them unprofitable. I hope they succeed.
[+] [-] azdle|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tetrep|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elorant|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] square90|9 years ago|reply
"If you have a YouTube channel (s) and your logged in to that channel it will get your channel suspended for Violation of TOU #4 Section H" [1]
Has anyone else confirmed this behavior on YouTube?
1. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/rev...
[+] [-] GlickWick|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _nalply|9 years ago|reply
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/rev...
[+] [-] ddevault|9 years ago|reply
Some legal resource I found online says that in the US fraud requires: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. [1] Note that "material fact" here is a legally significant phrase, and implies a written agreement or some other mutually agreed to terms that establish the expectation - which never happened between you and the ad provider.
No matter how you slice it the user of ad nauseum is not committing fraud. This misinformation needs to stop.
[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
[+] [-] VikingCoder|9 years ago|reply
Walk me through this, okay?
[+] [-] keldaris|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colept|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jordrok|9 years ago|reply
In the grand scheme of things, I know it probably won't make a difference, but I still recommend anyone else who is angry about this to do the same. It at least gives you some satisfaction in taking back a little bit of personal control from Google.
[+] [-] iopq|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deadcast|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xkxx|9 years ago|reply
Personally, I first heard about this extension a month ago and didn't pay much attention to it then. Now I want to install it.
[+] [-] abhv|9 years ago|reply
I would like an AdNauseum type interface for video.
[+] [-] acdha|9 years ago|reply
That theory works until someone notices that the extra clicks aren't leading to anything else, complains about click fraud, and then the website is penalized with fines, account suspension, etc. That small site likely won't even have the resources to defense themselves effectively.
There's also an interesting security question: do you really want to automatically click on the next zero-day deployed through an ad network?
[+] [-] halflings|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwolf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fixermark|9 years ago|reply
If it's simulating clicks on every ad, what is its mechanism for protecting a user's client from ad-delivered malware that has now been activated without the user's knowledge?
[+] [-] AdmiralAsshat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spoom|9 years ago|reply