For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
It's just adnauseum.
That never made any sense to me. Sure, if you convert a significant amount of people to spamming ad clicks you reduce the value of each click but that just means advertisers will pay less per click. It also has zero effect if they use other metrics, if you pay on conversion rate (number of signups/paying customers) click spam doesn't matter.
There is some value in messing with data by clicking everything but if you never see ads anyway that data isn't worth a whole lot.
You're also putting money in Google's pocket... They've been caught doing things like this to cheese their metrics
Once a customer burns through their ad buy and sees they got a ton of clicks, they're going to think "oh shit, this worked great". Even under closer inspection, it looks like the ad worked, but that they're failing to make the sales
So they're probably going to buy more
This idea only works by helping inflate the advertising bubble, until it pops you're just supporting ad services
Recopying my comment. Worked in the ad industry for a short while, and yes this will fuck with their metrics, not not in an obvious way. You have to know how companies make their money to really understand why it fucks with them:
It'll be a long game. As you "click" they'll think you're REALLY interested. However it won't matter since you won't see them.
Where you're really hurting them is how they rely on the Click Through Rate (CTR) as a metric for more important metrics. They know that less than 0.01% of people click, but the real metric is the sales funnel. If they can prove that you saw the ad and then eventually it led to a sale? Oh marketers lose their shit over that.
So, this destroys that conversion metric. They'll see way more click through, but the conversion metrics won't align. That's decades of models and algorithms that have been built to show that they're good at that... Going to zero. That's the metric that other companies pay gobs of money to advertising companies to prove - that their ads were not only seen but led to tangible sales.
And that's why everyone should do this. Ad companies know you're going to attempt to block ads, so they know if you saw it that you're more likely to buy, and if you click then you're so much more interested in buying. Then... No purchase, no buy, and the ad company has one less tick on their metric proving why they deserve some company's money. This fucks with them as an industry, and I couldn't be happier. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. After all, we're doing what they want!
click everything
It doesn't click nearly everything by default, that would diminish uBlock's bandwidth savings. I agree with your point though, and ads measuring signups rather than clicks have more agressive tracking by definition and should not be encouraged.
it's Adnauseam
Is it better?
Not for just blocking adds. It messes up advertiser's revenues. The idea is that it will disincentivise placing adds.
So it's pro-subscription activism? Hmm ok
gave it a test and to me it's not worth it as its incompatible with some privacy safeguards librewolf implements
TLDW: It's Adnauseum
Watched this and I agree with him. I've disabled (not uninstalled!) uBlock Origin and installed Ad Nauseum on both my home computers. At work I still use uBlock Origin since our data is limited (and we have a lot of computers online) so I try to work to reduce my bandwidth usage where I can. uBO helps with that. AN does not.
At home though, I'm on gigabit cable and it's only my wife and I, so no worries there.
I like what he says about ad blockers just making advertisers shift tactics while spending some high amount on ads and getting a $0 ROI will make them think twice about how ads are done.
I think, if you're looking at the bigger picture, this more direct attack on ads will lead to more sites being paywalled. I've never seen paid search until 2025, and I've been online since 1994. AltaVista, Yahoo, and later Google were always free. But now you have search companies saying "pay us and we won't track you, since we will be working for you." I think in this day and age we're already subscribing to so many things that the free options will continue to be good enough, but Proton has the right idea, bundling a lot of services people might want to use, like email and VPN and storage. They may not be the best at any of those things, but they are pretty good and they want you to be the customer rather than data brokers being the customer and you being the product, and I think that is admirable.
pay us and we won't track you, since we will be working for you.
Do they stop tracking or do they just not show the ads?
A good question. I think both. I am not their agent, nor their customer/user, so I don't have that answer.
It'll be a long game. As you "click" they'll think you're REALLY interested. However it won't matter since you won't see them.
Where you're really hurting them is they use the Click Through Rate (CTR) as a metric. They know that less than 0.01% of people click, but the real metric is the sales funnel. If they can prove that you saw the ad and then eventually it led to a sale? Oh marketers lose their shit over that.
So, this destroys that conversion metric. They'll see way more click through, but the conversion metrics won't align. That's decades of models and algorithms that have been built to show that they're good at that... Going to zero. That's the metric that other companies pay gobs of money to advertising companies to prove - that their ads were not only seen but led to tangible sales.
And that's why everyone should do this. Ad companies know you're going to attempt to block ads. This fucks with them as an industry, and I couldn't be happier. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. After all, we're doing what they want!
Sure better if you want everyone to know you're the one clicking all the ads!