This is why adblocking is so important

[Christian Klippel]

And here's another one to add to the collection of reasons to use adblockers:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/19/6537511/google-ad-network-exposed-millions-of-computers-to-malware

A Google representative has confirmed the breach, saying "our team is aware of this and has taken steps to shut this down."

...

"It was active but not too visible for a number of weeks ..."

...

The first impressions came in late August, and by now millions of computers have likely been exposed to Zemot, ...

Wouldn't it be great if those website owners, who claim to depend on ad revenue, would actually get together and force those ad networks to implement suitable security meassures, instead of whining about people using adblockers? Of course they should also pressure advertisers to get some sense and create better and safer ways to deploy ads. Like, uhm, ads delivered directly from the site owners server, after it has been vetted to contain no nasty stuff.

And if they are all too lazy to do anything like that, the site-op's should start to groow a pair and take responsibility for the ads they include. Like, you know, reimburse the costs incurred by those who had to get rid of that malware on their machines, and for the damage it may have caused.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[alfaniner]

I used to like to check out the Afri-cam once in a while (live cams of animal preservation areas) but a recent update to their site now shows a pop-up -- "It looks like you are using an ad-blocker. We depend on ads to support the site, so please remove ad-blocking."

I removed my bookmark link instead, but not before using a "colorful metaphor".

 

[GlennB]

I used to like to check out the Afri-cam once in a while (live cams of animal preservation areas) but a recent update to their site now shows a pop-up -- "It looks like you are using an ad-blocker. We depend on ads to support the site, so please remove ad-blocking."

I removed my bookmark link instead, but not before using a "colorful metaphor".

Out of curiosity I tried it in FF with Adblock+ and got through to live cheetah cubs. But anyway, yeah, screw ads.

 

[elgarak]

I used to like to check out the Afri-cam once in a while (live cams of animal preservation areas) but a recent update to their site now shows a pop-up -- "It looks like you are using an ad-blocker. We depend on ads to support the site, so please remove ad-blocking."

I removed my bookmark link instead, but not before using a "colorful metaphor".

What they should be saying and doing is: "We employ up-to-date security software and screen our advertisers for malware. We're trying to keep the advertisement as unobtrusive as possible. We understand your motive for using an ad-blocker, so we would appreciate if you would whitelist us."

 

[ehcks]

What they should be saying and doing is: "We employ up-to-date security software and screen our advertisers for malware. We're trying to keep the advertisement as unobtrusive as possible. We understand your motive for using an ad-blocker, so we would appreciate if you would whitelist us."

There is all of one website I go to that does this. Their ads are white, image-less banners with simple text and a link. They are the only ads I see on the entire web.

 

[CORed]

And here's another one to add to the collection of reasons to use adblockers:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/19/6537511/google-ad-network-exposed-millions-of-computers-to-malware



Wouldn't it be great if those website owners, who claim to depend on ad revenue, would actually get together and force those ad networks to implement suitable security meassures, instead of whining about people using adblockers? Of course they should also pressure advertisers to get some sense and create better and safer ways to deploy ads. Like, uhm, ads delivered directly from the site owners server, after it has been vetted to contain no nasty stuff.

And if they are all too lazy to do anything like that, the site-op's should start to groow a pair and take responsibility for the ads they include. Like, you know, reimburse the costs incurred by those who had to get rid of that malware on their machines, and for the damage it may have caused.

Greetings,

Chris

Absolutely. Also, the advertisers need to go back to banner ads or something else less obtrusive instead of the damn popups. The "mobile" versions of news sites seem to be the worst offenders. If you insist on producing ads that make it impossible to see the content I came to the site to see, I'm going to be so busy figuring out how to get the add out of the way that I don't notice or care (except maybe not to do business with them) who placed the add. Make it annoying enough and I will just block it. Put an ad somewhere visible but not in the way of what I actually want to read, and I might notice it, in the fairly unlikely event that it's for something I'm actually interested in buying.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Absolutely. Also, the advertisers need to go back to banner ads or something else less obtrusive instead of the damn popups. The "mobile" versions of news sites seem to be the worst offenders. If you insist on producing ads that make it impossible to see the content I came to the site to see, I'm going to be so busy figuring out how to get the add out of the way that I don't notice or care (except maybe not to do business with them) who placed the add. Make it annoying enough and I will just block it. Put an ad somewhere visible but not in the way of what I actually want to read, and I might notice it, in the fairly unlikely event that it's for something I'm actually interested in buying.

Indeed.

What is interresting in this case is that it took them about a month to actually notice, exposing the users to malware for that long. Plus, this isn't some small, obscure ad-network, but in the case of DoubleClick it's a really large one. And even then they can't provide the security and screening that should be done. Heck, this case makes it pretty clear that they don't even check the ads they distribute. Otherwise they should have noticed it much earlier.

I'm wondering what all those "But blocking ads will deprive the site-op's of their income, you are basically stealing their content!" whiners have to say about this. It's funny how they always get suspiciously quiet in these cases. But then, there really isn't anything that one could say to defend that system, while these situations happen again and again.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Donal]

I agree the admins have a responsibility to make sure they aren't pumping malware onto visitors’ machines.

But, if it really bothers you that much, shouldn't you just stop going to the site? This isn't a human rights issue, its about accessing essentially free entertainment. You're still enjoying their content. Shouldn't they be compensated somehow?

Full disclosure: I use ABP, Do Not Track Me, and NoScripts for FF and Chrome. If I like a site, I'll white list it. If it keeps trying to run autoplay videos and crap like that, I either stop visiting or send them some money to offset whatever revenue I would have generated.

 

[Christian Klippel]

But, if it really bothers you that much, shouldn't you just stop going to the site? This isn't a human rights issue, its about accessing essentially free entertainment. You're still enjoying their content. Shouldn't they be compensated somehow?

If they think they need to be compensated, then they should put their stuff behind a paywall. I can connect to whatever site i want, that's how the net works. If someone doesn't want me there, block me. Simple as that. They have exactly 0 entitlement to anything, let alone to throw malware at me through some ads that they clearly don't even bother to check.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Donal]

But you have entitlement to their content?

 

[marplots]

How do these things work? Do you have to click the infectious ad or just allow it to show up on your screen?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Absolutely. Also, the advertisers need to go back to banner ads or something else less obtrusive instead of the damn popups. The "mobile" versions of news sites seem to be the worst offenders.

God yes... I've browsed a number of sites via my mobile devices and the pop ups are not only intrusive (opening in same browser window, a new one, and google play in my case) but when you click the "back button" you don't go back to the original site, you go back to the page before it. It's worse for mobile devices too because mot only let you have a limited number of apps active on screen at once...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How do these things work? Do you have to click the infectious ad or just allow it to show up on your screen?

In this case, yes, you would have to download and run it ... it would likely be named flash_updater.exe or java_updater.exe or something like that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But you have entitlement to their content?

The most recent iteration of the ad-blocker discussion is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276041&highlight=ad-blocker

 

[Donal]

How do these things work? Do you have to click the infectious ad or just allow it to show up on your screen?

both. Some are links to malware riddled sites. Others runs scripts themselves that infect your computer. That is a big rule for me if I'm going to whitelist a site. No scripts/executables.

 

[Donal]

The most recent iteration of the ad-blocker discussion is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276041&highlight=ad-blocker

I know, I participated in it, defending ad blockers no less. Granted, my issue there was the lousy reasoning and misrepresented facts Buddha was doing.

My issue here is the sentiment that readers/viewers are entitled to the content. We're not.

 

[fuelair]

But you have entitlement to their content?

If it is put up on the web and has no access restrictions such as paywall or subscription requirement of course you do. It is equivalent to watching a free tv station (pre-cable concept for the young among us) or reading books, magazines or newspapers in the library instead of buying them. There are ads in 3 of the four I mentioned, but there is no requirement to read/watch them.

 

[Donal]

You pay for libraries and over the air television with your taxes.

And there is a restriction on the web content. that is why we're having this conversation.

 

[fuelair]

I know, I participated in it, defending ad blockers no less. Granted, my issue there was the lousy reasoning and misrepresented facts Buddha was doing.

My issue here is the sentiment that readers/viewers are entitled to the content. We're not.

I may be missing something so I will try again: a site puts up material, the material is listed in search engines, the site has no paywall and no (functionally equivalent) subscription requirement. On what basis do you contend that viewers are not "entitled to the content"?

IF your contention is based on the idea that they should also have to read/watch/listen to the ads, magazines, newspapers and television (non cable ) have, it is minimally simple to prove you wrong. How? You are free to skim past, overlook, purposefully avoid the ads in all of those - nothing illegal about it so nothing wrong with it. IF I interpret you correctly, you are reacting like the old fool at a meeting on new technologies I and a lot of others in tech and marketing were at about 10-12 years ago (at which I first heard of FOLEDs) who, when the discussion turned to the easy technology of ad avoidance, turned red (honest - he looked like he was having a heart attack) and said/yelled " Damn it, the government needs to make a law that people have to watch the ads - that's what makes the stuff available!!!!!" Fun evening and even the other advertisers/marketers were laughing (after we got over the shock of that level of stupidity).

 

[Aepervius]

But you have entitlement to their content?

Entitlement is a loaded word intentionally set up to give the impression somebody is stealing content and work and sweat.

This is not how the web works.

We politely ask , "can i see the page". Then the site decide to show it to us and give us all it think we should load up to watch it for the best experience. Then we simply omit to load *some* of the element.

There is no moral obligation to watch the ads, and neither there is a contractual one.

If the web site owner thinks ad blocker should not be used, it is up to him to enforce it, rather than have a welcome mat.