XSS vulnerabilities are due to website vulnerabilty, not browser.
Oops, yes of course. Corrected.
Ad networks have not cleaned up their act. “There’s always be crime, so whats the point locking your door” is not coherent.
I’m not disagreeing that ad networks have a huge problem, and I probably got off topic when I said it was the browser’s issue to solve. (But, as an aside, doesn’t Facebook have their own ad network? Have they ever had an exploit delivered via their network?)
My criticism is that people use ad blockers instead of just boycotting sites. That’s unethical to me.
The movie theater analogy doesn’t quite hold water for me, because there are a limited number of seats in a theater. Sneaking in does have a measurable cost, at least once the seats start to fill up.
But let’s gloss over that. What about showing up to the theater 20 minutes after the advertised start time (to avoid the annoying ads and previews)? What about using TiVo to skip past the ads on broadcast TV? Are these behaviors breaking some kind of “deal” that I’ve made, either with the theater or with the broadcast network?
And allowing them is the web equivalent of letting any random stranger on the street come up and stick you with mystery needles. No thanks. You don’t get to run scripting on my machine that I didn’t ask for, and if you want to block me, then I guess you won’t get my business.
Propping up broken business models that disrespect me and put me at risk is immoral. So I choose not to.
And allowing them is the web equivalent of letting any random stranger on the street come up and stick you with mystery needles. No thanks. You don’t get to run scripting on my machine that I didn’t ask for, and if you want to block me, then I guess you won’t get my business.
Propping up broken business models that disrespect me and put me at risk is immoral. So I choose not to.
Christ, the mental gymnastics. All this talk about malware is a total fucking red herring.
They don’t want your business if you’re not going to view the ads. You’re not a customer, you’re a leech. If you don’t agree with their business model, why aren’t you GTFO?
I wasn’t referring to the methods big sites use to cover their costs. I was referring to your implication that a web dominated by huge profit-driven sites is something we must preserve, even if it means enduring their shitty ads and privacy invasions or pay walls. As if there’s no imaginable alternative to a web dominated by huge, profit-driven sites.
If the methods sites use to make a profit are deemed onerous by enough people that they become no longer profitable, then let them die. Believe me, the vacuum won’t exist for long and I’d rather use methods such as ad-blockers to force content providers to come up with consumer respectful ways of making money or cease to exist and make room for ones that can.
(Your arguments that ad-blockers will destroy the web as we know it, BTW, sound a lot like those of movie industry execs when they scream that piracy is bankrupting them–while they enjoy their highest profits ever…)
When did I ever say anything about megacompanies? How do you think Boingboing makes money? Running a site is expensive. Writers need salaries. Even if they do it for the love, webhosts are expensive. Very expensive.
Advertising is the only micropayment system that has ever worked. I would put $100 in a micropayment account instantly if there was a universal system that let me pay for my pageviews and have all ads stripped from the site (by the publisher).
It’s really not. You seem to be looking at the issue as a transaction between individual consumers and the sites they visit. As @TobinL stated above, there are major corporations that are blacklisting advertising domains for security reasons. Others are recommending their employees use ad-blockers for security reasons. You seem to be taking a 20th century capitalist approach to a 21st century problem.
I’m dead fucking serious and if you think it’s not a legitimate problem. Don’t insult my intelligence. The ads aren’t for our own good, breaches and malvertizing happen all the time. And if you don’t know about it, you’re not even paying cursory attention.
Which brings me back to my question; do you think changing the channel when the ads come on is unethical?
It’s not an invalid question. I don’t watch TV (per se) so I can’t answer personally. I got rid of cable in 2006 and switched exclusively VOD and Netflix, partially for the ads, but also because it’s just more convenient and it lets me binge watch.
That said, I even let Netflix expire a few years ago. I have a 106 year old house I’m renovating myself, so I listen to more podcasts than any other media. If I translate your question to podcast ads: no, I rarely, if ever, skip through the audio ads, even though, unlike web ads, there is no way that could affect the podcaster since they don’t have analytics on play details via my podcast app. It’s mainly because I don’t bother to fish my phone out of my pocket before it’s over.
I’m dead fucking serious and if you think it’s not a legitimate problem. Don’t insult my intelligence. The ads aren’t for our own good, breaches and malvertizing happen all the time.
Facebook uses their own ad network and has never had a case of malware distribution. Do you think it’s ethical to block their ad network?
And if you don’t know about it, you’re not even paying cursory attention.
I know about it. I must be incredibly lucky that since I started using the web in 1992 on Mosaic, I have never had a malware infection. Maybe I’m immune?
Yes. I never asked for their ads and I still have no obligation to run whatever code they decide to give me along with their content. I own my computer. Not facebook or its ad affiliate network.
Way to pick and choose who you’re arguing with to support your stance. Any comment on the corporate / security industry practice of add blocking? Or is it so far removed from your narative you’re just going to ignore it?
Fair enough: I agree that ads can be an attack vector, one among many. I world argue that the vast majority of people using blockers are not doing so for hygiene reasons. I think it’s a particularly disingenuous argument for Mac, linux, and mobile users.
I argue that there is a social contract that publishers should be paid for their work and, in particular, to cover the cost of distributing their work. I therefore argue that for sites who choose to support themselves via ads, it is unethical to block those ads.
I argue that if customers are unwilling to view ads, they should leave the site entirely rather than block the publisher (MegaCorp or solo artist) from their chosen method of monetization. That is to say: some publishers don’t want monetization. Cool. Some do. Cool. I respect them and their position and if I don’t value their work enough to “pay” for it, it doesn’t feel right to enjoy they work AND increase their cost AND give them nothing for their labor.
