Agency user here,
Some may accuse me of being a shill for this post, some may remember me from a few posts I made in a previous fucking-with-google thread. I don't like Google and I don't like Mozilla either, but I must admit that the palemoon dev featured in the OP is correct. AdNauseum does not reduce Google's revenue.
Google is an ad network, and to put it simply, the service they provide is that they are a sort of middleman between websites and the automated bidding systems used by advertisers to buy space for their ads. Google generates lines of code for website owners to embed on the page, so that when a visitor comes through, the code detects what kind of person it is and passes that information on to the bidding platforms. There, a real-time auction takes place among the various advertisers on the system, so that the highest bidder is the one who gets his ad shown to the user on the website. This all happens in a few milliseconds while the page is still loading, because AI does all the negotiation.
Obviously, pushing through massive amounts of junk clicks decreases their value, because what advertisers ultimately want is for people to buy their shit, and if the conversion rate decreases then they won't want to pay as much for clicks. However, since all the bidding is done in real-time and the entire universe of ad trading is much like an AI-controlled stock market, those prices adjust relatively quickly to reflect the actual market value of whatever performance metric is being used as the basis for cost. CPM and CPC rates already fluctuate wildly throughout the year and even at different times of day, and are different in different locations and among different audiences, and they even account for the weather. When it's raining in your town, advertisers pay slightly more for clicks and views, because people are more likely to go on their computer and buy shit when they can't go outside. Fake impressions and bot clicks are already something that they know how to account for, and they do, because they know that if an ad is clicked and the same browser doesn't appear as an impression on the page it's directed to, then it wasn't legitimate. Advertisers can also set caps on the amount of traffic that is allowed from a single site and from a single device before all of them are thrown out as junk and not recorded or paid for, because the practice of using bots to click on ads is an ages-old tactic that content providers often use to falsify their viewership and make more money. There are also view verification companies that just take a cut of the profits to ensure that everything that gets paid for is legitimate, and every major advertiser employs at least two. So
All that being said, it starts to become clear why this isn't really a good way to hurt Google's profits. Their service is that they allow many websites to easily run ads and aggregate them together so that advertisers can bid on the opportunity to reach specific viewers without having to negotiate deals with those sites directly; and they will continue to make their money as a function of their market share among other ad networks. AdNauseum does not discriminate which ad networks it attacks, so Google is not harmed more than any other ad networks by that kind of spoofing. The people who bear the ultimate burden of sending through fake traffic are the sites themselves, because it makes the entire business model less efficient and they are the ones who have to deal with getting lower prices. Furthermore, as the PaleMoon fag mentioned, sites sending through more fake traffic can just be blocked from being able to use Google's service at all. Ultimately, promoting AdNauseum among white nationalists is just a massive campaign of shitting where we drink, because that behavior only disproportionately effects the sites we visit. I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't think content providers need any more reasons not to want the evil racists from gathering on their sites. And personally I would rather sites made money off us than not, because they are the ones giving us a place to go.
If you were trying to take down a specific kike beer distributor, would you host meetings in a bar and encourage your attendees not to buy anything?