Show HN: Adboost – A browser extension that adds ads to every webpage

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Novelty of an “ad-injecting” extension

  • Many treat the project as a joke: adding fake, nicely styled ads is framed as parody of today’s cluttered, intrusive ad ecosystem.
  • Some note the fake ads actually look better than real ones (simple CSS, text) and joke about subscriptions to remove them, “ad-ception” (ads inside ads), and popups/auto‑playing videos as “features.”
  • Others recall similar gag extensions (e.g., always-on donation banners) and say they’ve previously removed real extensions that injected unwanted ads, so this is not entirely unique.
  • A few see a serious angle: the placement/layout logic could be repurposed to insert other content (e.g., internal company messages, media previews in AI responses).

Enjoyment vs. hatred of ads

  • One commenter admits to enjoying high-production TV commercials (e.g., during football games) more than the game itself, when seen rarely.
  • Others respond that even iconic ads have a short novelty lifespan; repetition quickly becomes unbearable.
  • There is strong sentiment that online ads are “nonconsensual spam,” with frustration that industry rhetoric sometimes implies users shouldn’t even be allowed to ignore or skip them.

AdNauseam, fake clicks, and legality

  • A long subthread examines AdNauseam, which automatically “clicks” on all ads to both hide them and poison tracking data.
  • One side claims this is (or likely is) illegal click fraud or computer misuse:
    • Intent is to cause financial damage by generating invalid clicks.
    • Fraud doesn’t require a contract or personal gain; civil torts and “using a computer to cause money to move” can be enough.
    • Analogies are drawn to fake credit applications or scripts inflating someone’s CDN bill.
  • The opposing side argues it’s not clearly illegal:
    • Users have no contract with advertisers and are “just clicking buttons put in their face.”
    • Industry definitions of click fraud focus on publishers inflating their own revenue.
    • AdNauseam has existed for years; Google bans it from Chrome but hasn’t pursued users, suggesting legal ambiguity or lack of appetite for enforcement.

Ethics, harm, and alternatives

  • Critics of fake-click tools say:
    • They mainly harm advertisers and publishers, not big ad networks.
    • They may even increase Google’s revenue temporarily, and risk users being flagged as bots, CAPTCHAs, and worse privacy (each fake click leaks page-level tracking IDs).
  • Supporters counter:
    • The goal is to raise advertisers’ costs, reduce ad effectiveness, and poison behavioral profiles (appearing interested in “everything”).
    • This is framed as “fighting back” or “self-defense” against tracking and manipulative ads.
  • Several argue simple blocking is cleaner and more effective: no revenue to ad networks, better performance, fewer legal/ethical issues, and less data leakage.

Effectiveness and side effects of data poisoning

  • Some doubt AdNauseam’s technical effectiveness, claiming XHR-based clicks are trivial to detect and filter as fraud.
  • Others suspect ad networks may tolerate some fraud because it increases billed clicks and collected data.
  • There’s concern that poisoning might backfire: advertisers could lower bids where such tools are common, defunding sites frequented by technically savvy users and leaving them with lower-quality or scammy ads.