A basic GET request, even with a long querystring, will be negligible even on a 1998 dial-up connection.

Okay, fine, not enough to matter. Are you satisfied with that?

That HTTP request would also show up in the advertisers web logs with your origin IP address.

Thanks, I didn’t see this, there was a different embedded FAQ that didn’t have the specific Q & A below.

But, if anything, it seems to confirm the ad itself is just legitimately clicked from the user’s IP address and hidden from the user, and that there is code execution protection, but not that there is any privacy protection? It’s still very ambiguous.

How does AdNauseam “click Ads”?

AdNauseam ‘clicks’ Ads by issuing an HTTP request to the URL to which they lead. In current versions the is done via an XMLHttpRequest (or AJAX request) issued in a background process. This lightweight request signals a ‘click’ on the server responsible for the Ad, but does so without opening any additional windows or pages on your computer. Further it allows AdNauseam to safely receive and discard the resulting response data, rather than executing it in the browser, thus preventing a range of potential security problems (ransomware, rogue Javascript or Flash code, XSS-attacks, etc.) caused by malfunctioning or malicious Ads. Although it is completely safe, AdNauseam’s clicking behaviour can be de-activated in the settings panel.

I was actually curious about this as we’re forced to use Edge or.Chrome at work.

I use Librewolf. The comment was meant as info for those who think that having uBlock as a base still holds significance in light of Manifest v3.

Or a Chrome derivative

Is there an aspect of privacy through throwing loads of bullshit data though? Instead of blocking the tracking you flood it with crap

You could try being just a little optimistic if you want to sell your actually good points. Consumerism wins when you let it, and the only way to judge when it has are by your own merits, even now it gets to you with that mindset.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

google has way too much power. its threat to everything

Creators who care about privacy should not support Google’s monopoly by using YouTube as their platform of choice.

it’s a browser extension for Firefox, not a fork of Firefox. Or did I misunderstand you?

That comment is correct on so many levels…

Yes. That’s just what I want. An extension sending all ads served to me to a central location, so my fingerprint can be very easily indexed and stored on a definitely never hacked, leaked, or sold database.

Is it from this? https://youtu.be/hkDD03yeLnU

now you’ve broken the law by creating a botnet.

It just changes the user agent instead…

deleted by creator

You need a TCP handshake prior to sending any http payload.

deleted by creator

Totally, it’s up to you. The idea for fake-clickers is the long game: the marketers think they’re landing clicks over months or possibly even years, but will may slowly realize (gotta account for the stubborn ones) that it’s ineffective and eventually pivot to different approaches, hopefully ones that involve less tracking (I can’t imagine what any worse approach could be, at least).

What makes you think uBlock is safe without checking relevant code sections?

Here you go, from the repo:

  const visitAd = function (ad) {
    function timeoutError(xhr) {
      return onVisitError.call(xhr, {
        type: 'timeout'
      });
    }

    const url = ad && ad.targetUrl, now = markActivity();

    // tell menu/vault we have a new attempt
    broadcast({
      what: 'adAttempt',
      ad: ad
    });

    if (xhr) {

      if (xhr.delegate.attemptedTs) {

        const elapsed = (now - xhr.delegate.attemptedTs);

        // TODO: why does this happen... a redirect?
        warn('[TRYING] Attempt to reuse xhr from ' + elapsed + " ms ago");

        if (elapsed > visitTimeout)
          timeoutError();
      }
      else {

        warn('[TRYING] Attempt to reuse xhr with no attemptedTs!!', xhr);
      }
    }

    ad.attempts++;
    ad.attemptedTs = now;

    if (!validateTarget(ad)) return deleteAd(ad);

    return sendXhr(ad);
    // return openAdInNewTab(ad);
    // return popUnderAd(ad)
  };

  const sendXhr = function (ad) {

    // if we've parsed an obfuscated target, use it
    const target = ad.parsedTargetUrl || ad.targetUrl;

    log('[TRYING] ' + adinfo(ad), ad.targetUrl);

    xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();

    try {
      xhr.open('get', target, true);
      xhr.withCredentials = true;
      xhr.delegate = ad;
      xhr.timeout = visitTimeout;
      xhr.onload = onVisitResponse;
      xhr.onerror = onVisitError;
      xhr.ontimeout = onVisitError;
      xhr.responseType = ''; // 'document'?;
      xhr.send();
    } catch (e) {
      onVisitError.call(xhr, e);
    }
  }

  const onVisitResponse = function () {

    this.onload = this.onerror = this.ontimeout = null;

    markActivity();

    const ad = this.delegate;

    if (!ad) {

      return err('Request received without Ad: ' + this.responseURL);
    }

    if (!ad.id) {

      return warn("Visit response from deleted ad! ", ad);
    }

    ad.attemptedTs = 0; // reset as visit no longer in progress

    const status = this.status || 200, html = this.responseText;

    if (failAllVisits || status < 200 || status >= 300) {
      return onVisitError.call(this, {
        status: status,
        responseText: html
      });
    }

    try {

      if (!isFacebookExternal(this, ad)) {

        updateAdOnSuccess(this, ad, parseTitle(this));
      }

    } catch (e) {

      warn(e.message);
    }

    xhr = null; // end the visit
  };

That’s pretty much it! Let me know if it doesn’t make sense, I can annotate it

I still don’t get why you think it’s not the right approach. Seems perfectly fine to me.

Collateral damage to advertisers? Sounds like a feature, not a bug.