I am happy that i use an adblocker because it protects against malvertising ?

[Ns1]

When too many users use adblock, you're going to have a situation like this: http://www.kbb.com/ Where every site you visit says you can only access the content if you turn off adblocker.

Forbes or fortune does this too

 

[master_shake_]

ads?

i don't see no stinking ads.

and if sites need clickbait and ads to stay afloat then they don't need to be around.

but the solution to these mouth breathers is to block ad blockers not fix the ad problem.

i.e too many freaking ads and malware in ads.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Good riddence to them. It's kind of a standoff. Fix the issue, or run out of money. It's pretty simple.

Again, they don't want to take responsibility.

The reason for ad blockers to begin with is because of how unreliable, annoying and dangerous the existing ad rollout is. Yet, after all these years, it's only got worse, not better. They simply don't care. They only start caring when it hits their bottom line.

 

[Imp]

They could still have ads, but what they have now is just ridiculous.

I can stand YouTube's ads, I just look at another tab I have open while it plays.

But there are some click-bait sites that just spam you. One I know has like 6 graphic ads and 2 videos that auto-play at all times, every one in a while there's a pop-up that takes over the screen -- this site also constantly refreshes the ads while you're on it. And because they're shit ads, they keep freezing my browser window.

 

[BudAshes]

When too many users use adblock, you're going to have a situation like this: http://www.kbb.com/ Where every site you visit says you can only access the content if you turn off adblocker.

Then someone will release an adblocker that they cant detect.

 

[Shlong]

Then someone will release an adblocker that they cant detect.

And the adoption rate will be slow but when it picks up, the sites will detect the new detection - and rinse / repeat.

 

[ponyo]

Forbes or fortune does this too

Which is why I don't read or visit Fortune. Only time I temporary turnoff adblock is when I use cash rebate sites like Ebates. I want to be sure I get the cashback credit. Everything else, I use adblock and browse using Chromebook and Chromebox.

 

[JEDIYoda]

why visit questionable sites???

 

[balloonshark]

why visit questionable sites???

Every site with ads is a questionable site. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2466436

 

[BudAshes]

And the adoption rate will be slow but when it picks up, the sites will detect the new detection - and rinse / repeat.

Which is why its good to be an IT nerd

 

[Sheep]

It is insane with commercials on youtube. One or more at the start, several in between and on the end. It is just to much.

Not that I doubt you, but what YouTube videos have ads inserted in the middle? I regularly watch quite a few longer videos that would seem to be prime targets for such ads (game quick looks that range anywhere from 30-90 minutes in length) and have never seen an ad in the middle or at the end of any video (thankfully); I don't actively block YouTube ads either.

 

[DrPizza]

how dare people try to profit off their creations, those mother fuckers.

I'm fine with people profiting off their creations. However, if I go to a restaurant, I don't expect to get food poisoning from eating a meal there. Likewise, if I visit their site with my computer, I don't expect my computer to get a virus, ransomware, or some other form of malware.

Most ads are centralized ad servers. The sites obviously don't own them or have any control over them, but someone needs to be held accountable.

Instead in typical capitalistic fashion, they just want the rewards w/o any of the work or responsibility. People have known that ad servers are serving up malicious ads for...oh...since it became a thing, yet here we are. They certainly don't try to filter and/or prevent it.

Agreed 100%. There are a lot of websites - we can't expect all of them to have advertising departments that go from business to business soliciting advertising. Instead, the current system is a bit more efficient. Nonetheless, those serving those ads need to be held accountable.

If I go to a restaurant and get food poisoning, and can prove I got the food poisoning there, the restaurant should be held financially accountable. If I go to a website and lose productivity, or have to pay for ransomware, etc., someone needs to be held financially accountable. Perhaps a few lawsuits are going to be necessary before these ad servers finally tighten up their security? Until these problems are weekly occurrences, for my own safety, I'm forced to use adblocking software - even on sites I would rather support financially - because the consequences of this malware can be fairly significant.

 

[Ns1]

I'm fine with people profiting off their creations. However, if I go to a restaurant, I don't expect to get food poisoning from eating a meal there. Likewise, if I visit their site with my computer, I don't expect my computer to get a virus, ransomware, or some other form of malware.

no arguments here, but 2 separate issues.

 

[SparkyJJO]

When too many users use adblock, you're going to have a situation like this: http://www.kbb.com/ Where every site you visit says you can only access the content if you turn off adblocker.

Well screw them then. If they can't properly screen their ads to make sure they are 1) not infected and 2) not horrendously annoying (audio, popups, and flashy stuff should all be brutally rejected) then they can take a hike and I don't need them anyway.

 

[Red Squirrel]

On similar subject what is with all the 3rd party crap on sites these days? While a lot of it is ads, a lot of it is who knows what, and serves zero purpose but to bloat the whole web page. News sites seem to be the worse.

As an experiment I disabled all security add ons and went to cnn.com with the tools/web developer/network tool open.

375 requests, 11MB! That is completely insane.

And it keeps going up as the page sits idle. Ok so home page has lot of pictures, fine, click on an article:

399 requests, the file size kept resetting for some reason, so it's 0 now... I think it causes stuff to refresh or something. But still pretty insane. The whole browser locked right up for a good minute too.

Back to browsing the internet with an adblocker! That was terrible.

 

[Jeff7]

When too many users use adblock, you're going to have a situation like this: http://www.kbb.com/ Where every site you visit says you can only access the content if you turn off adblocker.

Dilbert: For a time there, both the comic images and the ads were being served right from assets.amuniversal.com/, and used what looked to be a long hexadecimal ID for each image.
Checking it now, that doesn't seem to be the case. Huh.

Something like that, with a long hashed value for each image, and not placed in an outwardly-visible subfolder, would seem impossible to block.


Randall Munroe did something like that for one long-running comic, #1190: Time.
It updated every hour. To prevent spoilers, he encrypted the filenames. This is the final image's filename:
4b9222127fb1e3fdc81781fb67a465f3ee10189881aa4572932dd3a44cb81920.png

If that's all the page tries to load for ads or content, with the server figuring it all out behind-the-scenes, blocking might be fairly difficult, and adblocking users might be forced back into the hell of sluggish processor-intensive ads and malware served off of a Pentium 133 on a 128kbps ISDN connection.

 

[Sonikku]

I used to put up with ads but they went too far. God damn ads and animated something flashing and throwing themselves in my face giving me a damn seizure. Thanks but no thanks. The added security is just a bonus.

 

[Jeff7]

I used to put up with ads but they went too far. God damn ads and animated something flashing and throwing themselves in my face giving me a damn seizure. Thanks but no thanks. The added security is just a bonus.

You wouldn't normally think that a toddler's obnoxious behavior to get attention would actually be a valuable job skill later in life, but here we are.

 

[StrangerGuy]

If the advertisers rightfully paid for the mobile bandwidth they suck and the damage caused by the malware they came out from their networks, they will be bankrupt in like a day.

 

[ImpulsE69]

If the advertisers rightfully paid for the mobile bandwidth they suck and the damage caused by the malware they came out from their networks, they will be bankrupt in like a day.

So we need to force all their servers to Comcast?

 

[JoeBleed]

When too many users use adblock, you're going to have a situation like this: http://www.kbb.com/ Where every site you visit says you can only access the content if you turn off adblocker.

This along with someone mentioning most, if not all, ad blocking software doesn't stop adds in other applications is why add blocking via my router is handy. I can go to kbb.com with no problem and no adds. I checked it with bypassing add blocking in my router and i get a few adds. nothing that looks too bad so i'm not sure why kbb went to that extreme.

I've been doing this for many years in Linux based routers. Something i used to do for my laptop and traveling before noscript and ad block programs came about was to create a host file on my laptop that blocked adds. this can be a bit annoying as some pages would take a long time to load or fail to load due to ping the add to the loop back address. Found a way around that latter. but i didn't have to bother with it for long.

The other thing i do in my router, though it can be frustrating at times, is to block sites accessed by IP address only. As i find a legitimate site that is IP only for some reason, i'll add it to the white list. only problem is sometimes google redirects and some local government pages randomly through in a link with the IP address in it instead of their registered host name. Those or the two biggest culprits i've had. Though i once had the same thig happen with Steam. Took me a while to check my logs to notice it was trying to access the download servers via IP. Randomly. And they, at least at one time not sure if they still do, change their server address. I assume they are trying to make a dDOS harder?

 

[JoeBleed]

I can stand YouTube's ads, I just look at another tab I have open while it plays.

I can stand most youtube ads i've seen, however, some "ads" are goddamn 20-30 minute infomercials. They seem to be really popular on music videos, unless youtube knows i'm in the shower and can't easily hit that skip button on my tablet.

Ad blocking in the router isn't perfect. It's an ongoing battle with keeping the list updated.

 

[JoeBleed]

Not that I doubt you, but what YouTube videos have ads inserted in the middle? I regularly watch quite a few longer videos that would seem to be prime targets for such ads (game quick looks that range anywhere from 30-90 minutes in length) and have never seen an ad in the middle or at the end of any video (thankfully); I don't actively block YouTube ads either.

I think, but not sure, this is up to the channel on rather they want to use ads or not. Some i follow do, some don't it would seem.

 

[KeithP]

I am happy that i use an adblocker because it protects against malvertising ?

But you are running Flash? Seems rather hypocritical to run an adblocker because of malware but you have a machine running Flash. It seems more like you just want to block ads and are rationalizing your behavior.

-KeithP

 

[William Gaatjes]

Not that I doubt you, but what YouTube videos have ads inserted in the middle? I regularly watch quite a few longer videos that would seem to be prime targets for such ads (game quick looks that range anywhere from 30-90 minutes in length) and have never seen an ad in the middle or at the end of any video (thankfully); I don't actively block YouTube ads either.

It were documentaries, originally from a television network.
I do not know anymore which it were. All i know is that the progess/timestamp bar next to the play button contained several yellow dots. These dots were the commercials. Every 10 minutes, a commercial would play.