4 ms·

And then content makers are still scratching their heads on why people please won't stop using adblockers?!

by 0x0 11y ago

542458 11y ago
This has nothing to do with blocking ads. You'd still be affected by this hack whether you were running adblock or not - the service is designed to be extremely difficult for adblockers to catch except maybe on a site-by-site basis. It's more of an argument for blocking all scripts.
- 0x0 11y ago
  I'd expect any decent adblocker to already have blacklisted this and similar services.
  - DanBlake 11y ago
    This is a service publishers use to show ads when a user has a adblocker enabled. It works on the most popular adblocker, adblock plus (firefox/chrome). Not sure if it works on ublock origin or ghostery/others, but those are still a small proportion of all adblock users. Noscript would have protected you though, which has a pretty large install base.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  "ad blocking" includes "ad (blocking blocking )* blocking"
- redml 11y ago
  Adblock extensions block tracking as well as an extra perk, sometimes by default (ublock origin does). Ultimately their tracking script is a metric they're using to help sell their product/agenda to more users anyway, so its a form of advertising either way, or at the very least in a similar realm.
x1798DE 11y ago
To be fair, I suspect that content blockers aren't puzzled as to why you would want to block ads. What they're trying to do is make it feel morally/ethically unacceptable to block ads. This is an example of them failing to live up to their role in the their preferred moral order (i.e. "you don't have to block our ads out of safety concerns because we'll safeguard them for you").
- 0x0 11y ago
  Exactly. Adblocking is almost more important than regular antivirus these days. Arguing against adblocking while serving ads from third party networks with unverified javascript is like arguing that running antivirus software is morally wrong.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    I completely agree everyone should be blocking ads for security, but this comparison is not right. Antivirus should already protect you from many known javascript-based malware. The difference is that antivirus will block (some of) the attacks being executed and let ads through. Adblock will block both normal ads and malware. That's why nobody ever argued that running antivirus is morally wrong.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > Adblock will block both normal ads and malware. Normal ads are malware for the brain. It's just that this type of malware is legal and considered by many to be a respectable occupation.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      People have argued against running antivirus: the desktop advertising industry. This is why "antivirus" and "antimalware" are separate products. This is the murky world of the "potentially unwanted program" (PUP). e.g. http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/05/sourceforge-grabs-gimp-for-windows-account-wraps-installer-in-bundle-pushing-adware/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/05/sour...

And then content makers are still scratching their heads on why people please won't stop using adblockers?!

by 0x0 11y ago

And then content makers are still scratching their heads on why people please won't stop using adblockers?!

This has nothing to do with blocking ads. You'd still be affected by this hack whether you were running adblock or not - the service is designed to be extremely difficult for adblockers to catch except maybe on a site-by-site basis. It's more of an argument for blocking all scripts.

0x0 11y ago
I'd expect any decent adblocker to already have blacklisted this and similar services.
- DanBlake 11y ago
  This is a service publishers use to show ads when a user has a adblocker enabled. It works on the most popular adblocker, adblock plus (firefox/chrome). Not sure if it works on ublock origin or ghostery/others, but those are still a small proportion of all adblock users. Noscript would have protected you though, which has a pretty large install base.
Dylan16807 11y ago
"ad blocking" includes "ad (blocking blocking )* blocking"
redml 11y ago
Adblock extensions block tracking as well as an extra perk, sometimes by default (ublock origin does). Ultimately their tracking script is a metric they're using to help sell their product/agenda to more users anyway, so its a form of advertising either way, or at the very least in a similar realm.

x1798DE 11y ago

To be fair, I suspect that content blockers aren't puzzled as to why you would want to block ads. What they're trying to do is make it feel morally/ethically unacceptable to block ads. This is an example of them failing to live up to their role in the their preferred moral order (i.e. "you don't have to block our ads out of safety concerns because we'll safeguard them for you").

0x0 11y ago
Exactly. Adblocking is almost more important than regular antivirus these days. Arguing against adblocking while serving ads from third party networks with unverified javascript is like arguing that running antivirus software is morally wrong.
- viraptor 11y ago
  I completely agree everyone should be blocking ads for security, but this comparison is not right. Antivirus should already protect you from many known javascript-based malware. The difference is that antivirus will block (some of) the attacks being executed and let ads through. Adblock will block both normal ads and malware. That's why nobody ever argued that running antivirus is morally wrong.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > Adblock will block both normal ads and malware. Normal ads are malware for the brain. It's just that this type of malware is legal and considered by many to be a respectable occupation.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    People have argued against running antivirus: the desktop advertising industry. This is why "antivirus" and "antimalware" are separate products. This is the murky world of the "potentially unwanted program" (PUP). e.g. http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/05/sourceforge-grabs-gimp-for-windows-account-wraps-installer-in-bundle-pushing-adware/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/05/sour...