3 ms·
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
by 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 agoAny ideas how that could work in practice, from the advertisers point of view it's likely too risky, too hard to audit?
- Grishnakh 11y agoI 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 agoI 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 agoFor 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 agoHave you ever gotten malware from an ad, pre-adblocking?
- whyever 11y agoHave you heard of this? http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/16/major-sites-new-york-times-bbc-ransomware-malvertising http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/16/major-site... Not blocking ads in this context is kind of like not patching your server after hearing of heartbleed.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]