Couple of issues I'm wondering about...
-
I'll be honest - you weren't really presenting your case in that way. Understand my confusion: you seemed pretty adamant about your concern with no backing data on it. Most people pick their hills with something to back them.
It's not really a hill for me to begin with lol.
-
I'll concede the data plan dent thing; I hadn't done any math regarding that. Thanks for clarifying that to me and everyone else!
I accept your concession, better luck next time.
But you did say "none" so I just pointed out the fact that it's not none. It's some. I wasn't wrong to point that out. No matter how much of a stickler you find me for that.
pedantry is pedantry, if you interject with "well ACKSHUALLY" over literaly a couple kilobytes of data in the Year Of Our Lord 2025 where common storage device sizes are in the multiple terabyte range, expect to be called one. It is functionally none, because it is not 1993.
Autistic or not.
can't even come up with your own insult for me, just gonna steal that sad attempt at one from the other guy? how... underwhelming, must do better.
better luck next time.
Huh?
I accept your concession
K.
if you interject with "well ACKSHUALLY"
Those are your words, not mine.
where common storage device sizes are in the multiple terabyte range,
I was talking about data sent over a network, not stored on disk.
️can't even come up with your own insult for me, just gonna steal that sad attempt at bait from the other guy?
My god. I'm not "out to get you" here, this isn't Reddit, will you fucking relax, dude? I thought you said that you were autistic? Maybe I misinterpreted you. Maybe it was someone else.
All good how? Ready to drop the insults?
️ -
It's not really a hill for me to begin with lol.
That's kind of my point - just based on the reception it's clear that a number of people were perceiving that as one. Normally that's the "pump the brakes" or the "hol up
️️" moment where you clarify. -
If you care about your information and privacy, why are you giving them your information for nothing?
You do have a point, but... It's not for nothing. It's to hurt the predatory ad industry. And what you give up isn't much: your IP address and likely the referral (so they know you visited website X that was serving their ad). It's up to you to decide whether that's an acceptable privacy cost to conduct this kind of guerilla ad warfare.
It would be cool if it could somehow integrate to a VPN and only do that while the VPN is active. I don't think it's possible, though.
-
Most people dont have static IPs. All the ads would see is web requests from random residential ips from a certain country.
I don't know about NZ (or wherever you are), but IP addresses for residential access in the US don't really change all that much. It's... concerning.
-
You do have a point, but... It's not for nothing. It's to hurt the predatory ad industry. And what you give up isn't much: your IP address and likely the referral (so they know you visited website X that was serving their ad). It's up to you to decide whether that's an acceptable privacy cost to conduct this kind of guerilla ad warfare.
It would be cool if it could somehow integrate to a VPN and only do that while the VPN is active. I don't think it's possible, though.
It would be cool if it could somehow integrate to a VPN and only do that while the VPN is active. I don’t think it’s possible, though
A split-tunnel VPN could do this, but it would require some advanced routing and awareness by the plugin to send the request down the other route. I think that would mean the plugin would have to have deeper hooks into OS to reach the IP stack which browsers usually don't have, so there would be some security implications there for abuse/attack surface of the plugin.
-
lol
furthermore: lmao.
You definitely seem rustled.
-
That's kind of my point - just based on the reception it's clear that a number of people were perceiving that as one. Normally that's the "pump the brakes" or the "hol up
️️" moment where you clarify.Gotcha.
-
- not in this way
- none
the way it works is sending an HTTP request that registers as a "click" to the advertiser (thus costing them money), but then doesn't actually let the browser download any content and fetch the webpage, basically pi-holes the ad and any attached tracking cookies. Combined with the fact that it does this to every ad, it would basically poison any click tracking.
Thanks for doing your part to spread the truth in this sea of lives and FUD.
It's clear that most people these days are proud consumers with more money than sense. All they care about is looking good in front of their consumerist friends, and they base all of their actions and decisions around what will support that ideology.
As a kid, I thought useful idiots were rare. Now I see it's the exact opposite.
-
You definitely seem rustled.
if you say so, whatever makes you happy.
-
The advertisers are paying for the opportunity either way. Clicks cost them more money than just displaying the ad. Useless clicks cost them money for nothing.
The advertisers could be paying based on interactions and/or their rates could be negotiated around interaction, so unless a sizeable number of people use this it would be giving money to Goog
-
System shared this topic
