Inspired by the discussion in ‘they already have your data’ I was reminded that AdNauseam exists. I rarely see it mentioned in privacy circles but the idea seems attractive to me, I’ve used it before and since it’s based on uBlock Origin it was just as effective in adblocking and the “poisoning” itself unobtrusive. How do you guys feel about it? Are there reasons it should be avoided?

  • @JoeKrogan
    link
    13
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    I think its a waste of time as they still get your data. They have algorithms designed to identify false positives in their click through rates and they have access to info from databrokers and things like facebook. Once they correlate that they know who the person is and the ip addresses and fingerprints of the hardware.

    Instead I would recommend tails or use a combination of blockers and default with JavaScript and cookies disabled , only allowing on trusted sites.

      • @JoeKrogan
        link
        58 hours ago

        Not off hand but here is a product tailored to advertisers that claims to be able to do it https://www.anura.io/product

        It stands to reason that this company must be successful in doing it if they are able to stay in business. That means ad companies are paying for it so they see value in it. So they are successful in eliminating or reducing their false positives.

        This was a quick search as I’m on mobile and in a meeting at the minute but you can be sure the big guys have in house teams for this eg Google, Meta etc

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          97 hours ago

          You’re giving them way too much credit. These companies sell the illusion of success. It’s in their interest to only find just as many false positives to seem like they have it under control. They make money from these false positives, after all.