Chameleon add-on for Firefox, randomly rotates your browser, OS, screen size, timezone, device type, language, and other customizable parameters every x minutes.

I’ve set it to do so every 5 minutes, and to omit desktop & tablet as device types (else some websites display the respective page) and timezones (messed up 2FA).

I also disabled blackberry and windows phone from the manufacturer ID, that would have the opposite effect from obscuring me.

For the rest of it, it’s working great.

Tell me how, then, because I don’t know how to get around the font thing. Everybody’s computer has a different set of fonts, and blocking browsers from seeing what fonts you have installed would help identify you even more.

Yes, but this only works if you connect your VPN via 3 block chain proxies.

Feed it SQL injections?

Why are you people so concerned about “the data?” Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

This is an effective tool to charge advertisers money without having their ads shoved in our faces. It directly undermines the integrity of the digital advertising ecosystem, and you people are obsessed with “privacy” because your priorities have been decided for you by your oppressors.

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

It just changes the user agent instead…

No, he means that’s literally not how IP addresses work. It’s not about “nothing being random.”

You don’t just “pick an IP address” from a list lmao and send it as though it’s not your actual IP. You would need to literally connect to a proxy and send the request through that proxy in order for ads to see an IP different than you own.

My god, are you people trolls or just the next generation taking hold? The dumbing down of Western society is in full force.

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

Just make a packet and overwite the IP field.

I can tell I’m getting old by the amount of proudly-dumb shit I keep reading.

It’s only going to get worse. Sigh.

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

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.

They can still get money from this. In fact, they get more money from this than with uBlock.

They recognize how it undermines the digital advertising system, so they did everything in their power to get rid of it before it takes off.

We really should be recommending adNauseam instead of uBlock.

They can still get money from this. In fact, they get more money from this than with uBlock.

They recognize how it undermines the digital advertising system, so they did everything in their power to get rid of it before it takes off. They’re fighting a generational war and don’t want us to even be aware of the tools we have to fight back.

We really should be recommending adNauseam instead of uBlock.

google has way too much power. its threat to everything

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

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.

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).

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

the part that’s safe is in the browser. it’s a basic fact of how http requests work that you can just request data and then not read it.

also, “task managering the popups”? unless i’ve missed some very weird development that has literally never worked, because popup windows are part of the parent process.

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

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

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