6 ms·

There are ad networks that do take positive steps to ensure that code is not harmful. Do you look into the ad networks you block and whitelist ones that are cle

by brettz 11y ago

There are ad networks that do take positive steps to ensure that code is not harmful. Do you look into the ad networks you block and whitelist ones that are clean? Or do you rely on Eyeo/ABP by using their acceptable ads list while they take a cut?

enraged_camel 11y ago
I would consider unblocking an ad network that serves static-image ads only. No gif banners, no JavaScript, no obnoxious or deceptive behavior such as trying to blend into the page and looking like a native page element to trick the user to click it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- striking 11y ago
  Project Wonderful is unblocked on my browser.
  - rspeer 11y ago
    Is there a straightforward way to unblock a particular ad network, such as Project Wonderful, using uBlock Origin?
    - striking 11y ago
      Go to projectwonderful.com and use the advanced selector's global column to turn the projectwonderful.com row green. You'll need to have turned on advanced mode for it to work. And of course, this only works with PW because PW serves ads from only its domain. Most ad networks aren't nearly so nice. When you're sure your changes are good, hit the lock button to save them. ... it's complicated, I know. Sorry!
lugg 11y ago
> Do you look into the ad networks you block and whitelist ones that are clean? No. I'm not incentivized to and it is not in my best interests. > Or do you rely on Eyeo/ABP by using their acceptable ads list while they take a cut? Is that enabled by default? I rarely see / notice ads.
- brettz 11y ago
  What would incentivize you to check which ad networks are clean?
  - mjevans 11y ago
    Nothing. The only time an ad might be remotely useful to me is if it's product placement which is on topic for a search that I am performing where I am already looking to buy something. At any other time it's just wasting bandwidth (which on some networks might actually cost me). I think that 'ads' are the wrong tool for the job. Ads are about 'making impressions', but doing so is actually an attack on the intellectual process of the subject that is being impressed. The very least an Ad should do is compensate for that attack by delivering actually useful and desired information. An ad should know from the context it's presented in what that user seeks and attempt to deliver value to that user. Ideally it should be about finding a match between consumers and the producers that match their need. The toxic part of ads is that they are not driven by this bounty, but instead by attempts at various companies to become the thing that fulfills a need which might not exist or which might be actively unhealthy.
  - justabystander 11y ago
    I'm going to start with a rant and then give you the solution you're asking for. Think of it as an advertisement for privacy. CTRL-F for "Here's a solution" if you need to, but you should read the rest. All advertising was "clean" at some point, consisting of just images and links. Web advertising changed direction at some point, following the money vendors paid them. And it's absolutely impossible to guarantee that owners or investors won't change policies later. Even if a company says that they'll never do it and put it in the TOS, they can still change it at a later date with no repercussions. Even doing something outside the TOS has few consequences, so sites and ad companies can lie about their policies. Which would be cheaper than actually reinventing themselves. So, thinking about it like this, your incentives aren't reliable and will likely expire at some point in time, rendering this approach useless. Expecting users in various industries with various levels of skill to have the motivation and expertise to clean up your industry for you is beyond ridiculous. Each individual user has such a low financial impact on final ad revenue that it would take a social movement beyond massive to have any reasonable effect. You're really targeting the wrong audience, here. There either needs to be some type of reliable third-party (if that's even possible, given the corruptability of this industry) who tracks ad network reliability, or vendors need to incentivize clean ad networks by not buying ads on networks that allow for exploits. You need to either self-regulate, or eventually be forced by regulation (either legal or through ad blocking). If there was a reliable, trustworthy industry clean up solution that didn't revolve around people paying to remove demerits (e.g. Yelp review), maybe we could all stop furiously ducking ads and see what's left after the adpocalypse. Here's a solution for you. Perhaps an enterprising "clean" ad network could build an extension that checks pages for third-party-hosted javascript, hidden images, and all the other tracking/exploitation techniques and rates them with an icon. That would be a far better way to market, as long as they don't try to exploit that gained goodwill. Post it on Github, keep it open. Base the entire thing about tracking sites that (directly or indirectly) use subversive techniques. Rate them and give them a black eye publicly, and include a public appeals process. This has to be automated and updated so that they can't get around it with new exploits. Build the results of this into a list that can be used by adblockers directly. But even without disabling ad blocking, you could see from this extension at a glance which sites operate in a non-user-hostile manner. EDIT: This solution here means that users don't have to "check" to see which sites and platforms are clean. They opt-in to find the information, and then it shows up on whatever site the see. All major browsers have been adding support for Chrome-style extensions. And I can find this information out before disabling ad-blocking, and be notified of sites that have significantly worsened. Seriously, if serving ads is something you want to do, I can't think of a better way to increase reliability than this. Also, you can't use this extension to track users, either. Even anonymously. Once again, users shouldn't have to go seek out clean advertising. There's literally no incentive at all for someone to say, "I want to see ads, so I'm going to spend hours investigating agency practices and which servers belong to which agency". And there never will be. As a user, it would cost me hours of time to educate myself, and I'd have to do it repeatedly to keep aware of which companies are toeing the line this week. All to earn you a few cents out of the goodness of my heart. The people who are buying and serving ads need to clean it up, or risk it collapsing around them. And they really should not expect sympathy or understanding until it's no longer risky to offer it.
marssaxman 11y ago
Nope. Not my problem. If they want me to run their code on my hardware they can offer me an incentive worth the hassle.
belorn 11y ago
I will start whitelisting publishers once they take full responsibility and become liable for the data that they distribute. So long a website thinks that they can transmit a virus and let the user take the fall, then I will do my best to protect myself. To my knowledge, there isn't a single publisher or ad network that take full legal responsibility if they distribute malware, false goods, or have other form of illegal ads. If there is one, let me know and I will take a look.
- Pietertje 11y ago
  To me, you are describing one of the core problems of ad networks. As long as they are not accountable (or simply never have to account) for malware distribution ad blocking will be the best protection...
- mirimir 11y ago
  I've often wondered about this. How can there be no liability? And yes, I'm sure that there are usage terms buried somewhere. But warning people that you may attack them doesn't absolve you from criminal charges and/or civil liability.
  - jeremyjh 11y ago
    Nothing stops you from suing them; if the real damages can be proved and are great enough to justify the cost of a lawsuit than it may even be worth doing. If real damages were in tens of thousands I'd at least hire a lawyer to send them a letter and see if you can get an easy settlement.
  - usrusr 11y ago
    Not only difficult to prove, but also difficult to even get an idea of whom to sue. Got burnt by some ransomware, now what? Use that backup you hopefully have and that's it. In the time between backup and damage, the primary browser would have touched just about every ad network in existence and nobody knows how many other unpublished holes might have been responsible for the malware to leak in. Art the other end of the range, if you are a security expert analyzing the incoming flood, you may have an abstract case of attempted computer fraud, but no concrete damages. Edit: could this change once ad-blockers have caused the introduction of server-side splicing of ads and content? (I suspect that this will become the main business of edge server operators not too far down the road)
tallanvor 11y ago
I have no plans to unblock any ad network. It's simply too big of a risk these days, even for those of us in IT. You might not like it, but sites are going to have to go back to the days where they host the ads on their own domain. I suppose they may still interact with an external network so they don't have to handle the sales themselves, but making sure everything is hosted from their own domain means it'll be much easier to hold them liable if malware is delivered through their site.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  Any ideas how that could work in practice, from the advertisers point of view it's likely too risky, too hard to audit?
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    I don't see what the problem is: if the advertisers only pay the site owners based on actual click-throughs (rather than impression), what's the problem?
    - kazagistar 11y ago
      I think the problem is that for most ads, impressions are the bulk of your value. For example, a company might advertise so that when you do actually need their service, they come to mind first.
      - Grishnakh 11y ago
        For ads on TV, billboards, etc., that's true. For web ads, I thought that most places had given up on charging by impression, and only charged by click-through.
- brettz 11y ago
  Have you ever gotten malware from an ad, pre-adblocking?
LoSboccacc 11y ago
And then there's mobsweet which does the utterly annoying full page redirect
fucking_tragedy 11y ago
What happens when The Good Networks decide they can earn more revenue by serving you questionable code? The task of whitelisting becomes much more involved when networks are incentivized to act maliciously or turn your private data into something profitable. You'll have to be on the constant look out for when Network A decides "don't be evil" affects their bottom line.
- brettz 11y ago
  So you're saying there is no possible outcome where ad networks exist? Then you support a paid per consumption model in the future?
  - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    Those incentives to act maliciously can be minimized or eliminated.

by brettz 11y ago

enraged_camel 11y ago

I would consider unblocking an ad network that serves static-image ads only. No gif banners, no JavaScript, no obnoxious or deceptive behavior such as trying to blend into the page and looking like a native page element to trick the user to click it.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
striking 11y ago
Project Wonderful is unblocked on my browser.
- rspeer 11y ago
  Is there a straightforward way to unblock a particular ad network, such as Project Wonderful, using uBlock Origin?
  - striking 11y ago
    Go to projectwonderful.com and use the advanced selector's global column to turn the projectwonderful.com row green. You'll need to have turned on advanced mode for it to work. And of course, this only works with PW because PW serves ads from only its domain. Most ad networks aren't nearly so nice. When you're sure your changes are good, hit the lock button to save them. ... it's complicated, I know. Sorry!

lugg 11y ago

> Do you look into the ad networks you block and whitelist ones that are clean? No. I'm not incentivized to and it is not in my best interests. > Or do you rely on Eyeo/ABP by using their acceptable ads list while they take a cut? Is that enabled by default? I rarely see / notice ads.

brettz 11y ago
What would incentivize you to check which ad networks are clean?
- mjevans 11y ago
  Nothing. The only time an ad might be remotely useful to me is if it's product placement which is on topic for a search that I am performing where I am already looking to buy something. At any other time it's just wasting bandwidth (which on some networks might actually cost me). I think that 'ads' are the wrong tool for the job. Ads are about 'making impressions', but doing so is actually an attack on the intellectual process of the subject that is being impressed. The very least an Ad should do is compensate for that attack by delivering actually useful and desired information. An ad should know from the context it's presented in what that user seeks and attempt to deliver value to that user. Ideally it should be about finding a match between consumers and the producers that match their need. The toxic part of ads is that they are not driven by this bounty, but instead by attempts at various companies to become the thing that fulfills a need which might not exist or which might be actively unhealthy.
- justabystander 11y ago
  I'm going to start with a rant and then give you the solution you're asking for. Think of it as an advertisement for privacy. CTRL-F for "Here's a solution" if you need to, but you should read the rest. All advertising was "clean" at some point, consisting of just images and links. Web advertising changed direction at some point, following the money vendors paid them. And it's absolutely impossible to guarantee that owners or investors won't change policies later. Even if a company says that they'll never do it and put it in the TOS, they can still change it at a later date with no repercussions. Even doing something outside the TOS has few consequences, so sites and ad companies can lie about their policies. Which would be cheaper than actually reinventing themselves. So, thinking about it like this, your incentives aren't reliable and will likely expire at some point in time, rendering this approach useless. Expecting users in various industries with various levels of skill to have the motivation and expertise to clean up your industry for you is beyond ridiculous. Each individual user has such a low financial impact on final ad revenue that it would take a social movement beyond massive to have any reasonable effect. You're really targeting the wrong audience, here. There either needs to be some type of reliable third-party (if that's even possible, given the corruptability of this industry) who tracks ad network reliability, or vendors need to incentivize clean ad networks by not buying ads on networks that allow for exploits. You need to either self-regulate, or eventually be forced by regulation (either legal or through ad blocking). If there was a reliable, trustworthy industry clean up solution that didn't revolve around people paying to remove demerits (e.g. Yelp review), maybe we could all stop furiously ducking ads and see what's left after the adpocalypse. Here's a solution for you. Perhaps an enterprising "clean" ad network could build an extension that checks pages for third-party-hosted javascript, hidden images, and all the other tracking/exploitation techniques and rates them with an icon. That would be a far better way to market, as long as they don't try to exploit that gained goodwill. Post it on Github, keep it open. Base the entire thing about tracking sites that (directly or indirectly) use subversive techniques. Rate them and give them a black eye publicly, and include a public appeals process. This has to be automated and updated so that they can't get around it with new exploits. Build the results of this into a list that can be used by adblockers directly. But even without disabling ad blocking, you could see from this extension at a glance which sites operate in a non-user-hostile manner. EDIT: This solution here means that users don't have to "check" to see which sites and platforms are clean. They opt-in to find the information, and then it shows up on whatever site the see. All major browsers have been adding support for Chrome-style extensions. And I can find this information out before disabling ad-blocking, and be notified of sites that have significantly worsened. Seriously, if serving ads is something you want to do, I can't think of a better way to increase reliability than this. Also, you can't use this extension to track users, either. Even anonymously. Once again, users shouldn't have to go seek out clean advertising. There's literally no incentive at all for someone to say, "I want to see ads, so I'm going to spend hours investigating agency practices and which servers belong to which agency". And there never will be. As a user, it would cost me hours of time to educate myself, and I'd have to do it repeatedly to keep aware of which companies are toeing the line this week. All to earn you a few cents out of the goodness of my heart. The people who are buying and serving ads need to clean it up, or risk it collapsing around them. And they really should not expect sympathy or understanding until it's no longer risky to offer it.

marssaxman 11y ago

Nope. Not my problem. If they want me to run their code on my hardware they can offer me an incentive worth the hassle.

belorn 11y ago

I will start whitelisting publishers once they take full responsibility and become liable for the data that they distribute. So long a website thinks that they can transmit a virus and let the user take the fall, then I will do my best to protect myself. To my knowledge, there isn't a single publisher or ad network that take full legal responsibility if they distribute malware, false goods, or have other form of illegal ads. If there is one, let me know and I will take a look.

Pietertje 11y ago
To me, you are describing one of the core problems of ad networks. As long as they are not accountable (or simply never have to account) for malware distribution ad blocking will be the best protection...
mirimir 11y ago
I've often wondered about this. How can there be no liability? And yes, I'm sure that there are usage terms buried somewhere. But warning people that you may attack them doesn't absolve you from criminal charges and/or civil liability.
- jeremyjh 11y ago
  Nothing stops you from suing them; if the real damages can be proved and are great enough to justify the cost of a lawsuit than it may even be worth doing. If real damages were in tens of thousands I'd at least hire a lawyer to send them a letter and see if you can get an easy settlement.
- usrusr 11y ago
  Not only difficult to prove, but also difficult to even get an idea of whom to sue. Got burnt by some ransomware, now what? Use that backup you hopefully have and that's it. In the time between backup and damage, the primary browser would have touched just about every ad network in existence and nobody knows how many other unpublished holes might have been responsible for the malware to leak in. Art the other end of the range, if you are a security expert analyzing the incoming flood, you may have an abstract case of attempted computer fraud, but no concrete damages. Edit: could this change once ad-blockers have caused the introduction of server-side splicing of ads and content? (I suspect that this will become the main business of edge server operators not too far down the road)

tallanvor 11y ago

I have no plans to unblock any ad network. It's simply too big of a risk these days, even for those of us in IT. You might not like it, but sites are going to have to go back to the days where they host the ads on their own domain. I suppose they may still interact with an external network so they don't have to handle the sales themselves, but making sure everything is hosted from their own domain means it'll be much easier to hold them liable if malware is delivered through their site.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
Any ideas how that could work in practice, from the advertisers point of view it's likely too risky, too hard to audit?
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  I don't see what the problem is: if the advertisers only pay the site owners based on actual click-throughs (rather than impression), what's the problem?
  - kazagistar 11y ago
    I think the problem is that for most ads, impressions are the bulk of your value. For example, a company might advertise so that when you do actually need their service, they come to mind first.
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      For ads on TV, billboards, etc., that's true. For web ads, I thought that most places had given up on charging by impression, and only charged by click-through.
brettz 11y ago
Have you ever gotten malware from an ad, pre-adblocking?

LoSboccacc 11y ago

And then there's mobsweet which does the utterly annoying full page redirect

fucking_tragedy 11y ago

What happens when The Good Networks decide they can earn more revenue by serving you questionable code? The task of whitelisting becomes much more involved when networks are incentivized to act maliciously or turn your private data into something profitable. You'll have to be on the constant look out for when Network A decides "don't be evil" affects their bottom line.

brettz 11y ago
So you're saying there is no possible outcome where ad networks exist? Then you support a paid per consumption model in the future?
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  Those incentives to act maliciously can be minimized or eliminated.