Google nukes ad-blocker AdNauseam, sweeps remains out of Chrome Web Store Google has removed ad blocking and privacy extension AdNauseam from its Chrome Web Store, and has taken the unusual step of flagging the extension as malware, thereby preventing AdNauseam from being used by those who have installed the software via Chrome's developer mode. Chrome users who put their browser into developer mode …
Google is running scared now. Too many ad-blockers on too many platforms are crashing it's revenue.
Just look at AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) to see the future of Google Search:
- Links provided to Google's own version of those pages, complete with Google's own ads.
(You may have used Google search to go to a page, and see a white banner at the top of the page. Take a look at the URL in your browser!)
I do use Firefox as well as Chrome. Seems Firefox is having "issues" with memory and slowness. I'm hoping for a new build release (I'm using the current one) soon... very soon.
IE is the pits for some of the forums I use as there's a few bugs in IE 11 that won't let it play nice with them.
Because they have something to debug and need to see how it behaves it on the most popular browser. IMO the Chrome debugger is better than the firefox one for general web dev anyway.
It's not my daily browser but when I'm working in JS Chrome is my default debugger.
The latest builds of Firefox block the use of unsigned and unapproved extensions. I switched some of my browsing to Pale Moon so I could run a couple of old "Jet Pack" extensions that no-one is maintaining since the Pale Moon developers said they would continue to allow unsigned extensions to run. The next release of Pale Moon kicked Jet Pack to the curb...
It seems like forever that Google has been using its assorted "free" services as bait to get the public to give it access to our behaviour, interests, purchasing habits and just about everything else. Yet still there are people who should know better recommending Chrome as a browser. In effect making Google into the spider at the centre of our individual bits of the web. Of course they are going to do their best to stop users blocking the very reason Chrome exists. Chrome is not there for our benefit any more than a worm is on a hook for the fishes' benefit. It is there for exactly the same purpose. And they are not about to let anyone grab the bait and swim off with it.
Chrome should be treated as the spawn of Satan. And the almost ubiquitous Android is no better - yet we don't get anything like the level of bile aimed at Google on El Reg that we get if Microsoft is even so much as mentioned.
Indeed. It is amazing how much howling and hosing you get on any thread even remotely connected with Win 10 whereas it is very much quieter both in terms of the nature of the postings and the number of them that we see on any thread which involves Google's privacy issues. I am not in any way implicitly or explicitly making excuses for the serious privacy issues with Win 10 but when it comes to data "slurping" Google could give master classes to world plus wife plus dog and Microsoft.
"howling and hosing you get on any thread even remotely connected with Win 10 whereas it is very much quieter"
Yes because google has been scum for years while Microsoft only just started putting all the shit I hate about android into windows.
I have never trusted android. I do trust my Win 7 install although the assholes have made me disable windows update.
"To make Chrome safer, we have disabled the following extension that isn't listed in the Chrome Web Store and may have been added without your knowledge."
Don't disable it... Give me the option to accept that I know what I am doing and want to use it. It is acceptable to make the default option "Disable" but for F%$#s sake at least give me the option. I am sick of companies deciding that they know what I am trying to do and overriding what I want.
Can't help thinking it'd be better if you had a slider to set the percentage of ads it clicked. Google'll spot that you're clicking every ad pretty quickly (in fact I'm surprised they killed the add-on and didn't just ignore the clicks) whereas if you were to click 0.2% of them you'd look more like a normal user.
Surely that'd do more damage to their business in the long term, it'd be much trickier to pick the fake clicks out of the real ones.
Just switched from AdBlock Plus to AdNauseum to see how well the two compare - it is made patently obvious that this add-on can do background 'clicking' of ads. The initial config requires confirmation of three main settings: Hide Ads, Click Ads, Block Malware. Definitely not "without the users (sic) knowledge".
Whether there is any real benefit in generating a false click trail is probably going to remain a matter of debate. Personally I'm finding the combination of AdN, NoScript and Cookie Monster on Firefox is giving a relatively clean web browsing experience.
Choosing to use AdN now may add to the pressure for the ads industry to do something relevant and useful about the current situation. With Google deciding to punt AdN now, maybe the pressure is being applied in the right place. We'll see.
As for El Reg - not one ad appears although I guess with AdN they are generating the revenue even with a big fat zero on viewability.
This doesn't seem quite right. Surely the advertisers are the ones losing money, Google still get paid. So while their bottom line may be impacted in the long term in the short to medium they're quids in.
The question is how much will the fake click trail confuse their behavioural targetting, and how long will it take for the fake clicks to impact the effectiveness of the ad campaigns?
Nevertheless, now I know about AdNauseum I think I'll be changing from UBlock.....
Just installed it myself, not only can I block their shitty ad's I can support the webpage I'm visiting too :D
This has *nothing to do with Sticking a big F*CK YOU to the advertising industry.
Enjoy the clicks El'Reg
*nothing equates to mostly
I don't mind text-only ads. However, when you start pushing obnoxious javascript, flash and video ads that play by default and I can't turn off, you've crossed the line. You're eating my quota by forcing stuff I don't want down my throat. And I'm pretty sure this is the sentiment felt by those who're on an Internet connection with an unreasonably low cap like I am. Also, javascript and flash ads are known to push malware (still having that problem on cracked.com on mobile).
Go back to text-only ads and I'll gladly stop using adblockers. Heck I'm pretty sure adblockers will fall out of use with text-only ads (plus, text-only ads won't be able to force malware onto a device because there's no javascript, it relies on the victim to be a schmuck to click on the link and get infected).
The problem being people become innured to ads over time so they have to become more ostentatious to MAKE you pay attention. That's why banner ads and text ads aren't worth their money. And they don't care if you're annoyed because they hire psychologists that show: "Love them or hate them, as long as you KNOW them" works. Unless you can show independent psychological studies to show otherwise. After all, why do people stick with the likes of Google and Yahoo IN SPITE OF all the bad press in the MSM about them?
"The problem being people become innured to ads over time so they have to become more ostentatious to MAKE you pay attention.
Hi there, ad industry shill. A recent article here reminded us of the John Wanamaker quote that only half of his advertising worked but he didn't know which half. I think he'd have been delighted with ad-blockers because they'd have provided that knowledge.
Perhaps one day your clients will take the hint - after all many of them are probably blocking ads too because, of course, this making people pay attention bit gets you the WRONG sort of attention - pissed off people are not going to be good customers. And when your clients make that connection you are in really big trouble. In the meantime no doubt your arrogance and lack of self-awareness will keep you charging to the cliff edge. The rest of us will enjoy watching you fall over it.
"Perhaps one day your clients will take the hint - after all many of them are probably blocking ads too because, of course, this making people pay attention bit gets you the WRONG sort of attention - pissed off people are not going to be good customers."
Didn't you read? "Love me or hate me, as long as you KNOW me." Especially if I can smother the alternatives on the market and make it a Hobson's Choice. Now what will you do? Alternatives don't always exist, and it's not always possible to roll your own.
And, I'm no shill. I just know that ads are a fact of live, have been for over a century. Hell, even E. E. Smith wrote about advertising in First Lensman (which dates back to World War II) and about how they go to great lengths to get your attention.
@Charles 9. Hmmn... I go into shop. I buy stuff that I know I want. I see other stuff. Some of it piques my curiosity, so I look at it, and make a decision whether to purchase it or not as well. On-line and telly advertising has NO impact. Heck, I love the meerkats in a certain advertising campain, but they're not advertising anything I want (I purchase from a different supplier that I'm happy with and that does almost no advertising). Some brands have guaranteed I'll never buy from them either due to their product quality, their unethical behaviour or due to their advert-spamming. Others have ensured that I'll avoid them whenever I sensibly can, for the same reason. I can't think of a single case where I've brought a product simply due to the advertising
(shrugs) I'm not by any means arguing that advertising never works, but I'm pretty damned sure it isn't anything like as effective as some ad-slingers claim.
"Love me or hate me, as long as you KNOW me."
This, of course, has to be the advertising industry's motto. As long as they can keep the punters believing that's all that matters they'll stay in business. Remember, the only thing the advertising industry sells is adverts. Preferably big expensive adverts that they can persuade their punters are getting them value for money.
If I see a big, expensive advert I think "Why should I pay for that?" Same with a big, flashy shop.
Yes, but we're not in the business of selling big, expensive adverts or big, flashy shops. At least I'm not and I don't suppose you are. But being in such a business requires you to take a different attitude - and try to get your clients to share it. I say again, the advertising industry sells adverts to advertisers, that's all. What effect it has on the advertisers' bottom line isn't their problem providing they get paid.
Well done on your EE Smith reference - not too many people remember the Doc these days. But - though one should hesitate to mention her in the same paragraph as EE Smith - a rather earlier and utterly compelling insight into advertising is Dorothey E Sayers' Murder Must Advertise. But, of course, she had inside knowledge of the industry.
(What would she have made of Google/DoubleClick? One hates to think.)
"pissed off people are not going to be good customers."
You can say that again!
"pissed off people are not going to be good customers."
Thanks.
'Didn't you read? "Love me or hate me, as long as you KNOW me."'
No I don't buy that. There's no way I'm going to uSwitch or Go-compare because of their irritating tv ads. If I KNOW a brand then I'll remember to avoid it. If you stick a pop-up window in front of what I'm trying to read what makes you think I'm going to buy your stupid product anyway?
text-only ads won't be able to force malware onto a device because there's no javascript,
There is. To load it as the alternative is server code which is not feasible. Otherwise agree.
There are several issues here:
0. There is no Google. The company should be called is Doubleclick. It subsumed Google and Google adopted its advertising practices after it "took over" it (quotes needed).
1. Text only ads need a very high degree of relevance in order to generate significant click-through rates. Google decided to forgo the relevance level for sake of more realtime ads and trending. This is the so called dumb-ass to smart-ass transition ~ 9 years ago. In reality - that was the moment of internal takeover by Doubleclick - as the ads stopped being relevant they had to become Doubleclicky shout in your face crap (primary reason Google text ads took most of Double's market).
2. We are back to a point where the lion share of ad spend on the market are from big brands. These do not rely on clickthrough at all - they are per-impression ads. They are there to "maintain presence". They are also the ones who have marketing departments with budgets sufficient to feed the ad agencies to generate the flashy video crap. If Google decides to switch to text this revenue goes elsewhere. As it is now a public corporation a 90% drop in revenue is not going to work well with its shareholders.
It is a classic lose-lose situation where the only solution is the emergence of a new player which does text only ads. That unfortunately is not likely to happen as there is no way for a newcomer to push out Google from the search space which is both its relevance info provider as well as primary opportunity to serve ads.
"Google decided to forgo the relevance level for sake of more realtime ads and trending."
Google sites have reasonable levels of monetisation. Look at youtube - sponsored videos on the right, preroll ads and postroll ads. creators can monetise their content more heavily but again, that's the creator's choice. Search pages also have only text and unobtrusive image ads.
Beyond that, it's the advert creator which causes the ad obnoxious and the agency which doesn't set impression limits. Neither of which are limited by Google - or any other display ad provider.
Personally, I'm not even sure if the GDN supports those godawful autoplaying video ads (with the exception of YouTube obv)
> 2. We are back to a point where the lion share of ad spend on the market are from big brands. These do not rely on clickthrough at all - they are per-impression ads. They are there to "maintain presence".
Then make them unclickable so AdNauseam can't click them. Don't need tracking either.
Of course they'll still be obnoxious but it'd be a step in the right direction.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
