3 ms·
Right, but why do you stop there and blame Forbes and not e.g. Google -- the company that let the attacker upload the malware? It's very hard for a publisher -
by geocar 11y ago
Right, but why do you stop there and blame Forbes and not e.g. Google -- the company that let the attacker upload the malware?
It's very hard for a publisher -- even one as big as Forbes to hold Google accountable for anything. The fact that most people have such a fundamental lack of understanding about how digital advertising works doesn't help either.
- a3n 11y agoAs a casual browser I can only blame the site that "served" me, good and hard. I have no idea what network or subnetwork ultimately served the malware/ad. And since the visited site is the one that came into my "home," it's entirely appropriate to hold the site's feet to the fire. When a site becomes well known for holding itself responsible for what comes out of the site, and doing it effectively, I'll whitelist them.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoThe reality is in fact very simple. Ultimately, the buck stops with Forbes. They're the ones who decided to serve ads, they've made the decision to do it without their oversight - so they're the ones to be held responsible if the ads start spreading malware. It's publishers, not us, who can and should exert market pressure on ad networks to change.
- digbyloftus 11y agoUltimately the buck actually stops with the end user. They're the ones who decided to ask a server outside of their control for any and all data it has stored at an address and then used it in a way harmed themselves. It very much is us who can and should exert market pressure on ad networks to change. The publisher, ad network, ad creator, any and all business, only exists to satisfy our needs and wants. We are the market not publishers.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoOh, but we do. We install ad blockers. That's the best way to exert that pressure from our side :). > The publisher, ad network, ad creator, any and all business, only exists to satisfy our needs and wants. We are the market not publishers. You'd wish. We are as much a market as dogs are the market for dog food. They're not, dogs don't have money. Dog food is marketed to human owners. And so it's publishers who are customers of ad networks.
- digbyloftus 11y ago>Oh, but we do. We install ad blockers. That's the best way to exert that pressure from our side :). That's exactly what I meant haha. I find the constant barrage of news about how terrible ads are baffling. There's a very simple solution for end users and it's been around for a long time. >They're not, dogs don't have money. We do have money. That's what they want from their ads, our money. Don't view ads -> don't click ads ->don't spend money on advertised products -> problem solved.
- YokoZar 11y agoWhy do you think Google was the ad network responsible? The article names several other ad networks (Atomx, Yahoo) and doesn't even mention Google.