3 ms·
Yeah, the security angle is a big deal. The long and short of it is that ad networks and publishers are both apathetic to what a gigantic dumpster fire ad-servi
by potatolicious 10y ago
Yeah, the security angle is a big deal. The long and short of it is that ad networks and publishers are both apathetic to what a gigantic dumpster fire ad-serving is.
Publishers are eager to blame ad networks for the terrible performance, while ad networks just can't give enough of a shit to work on it. Publishers also are eager to blame ad networks when they're caught serving scams and malware, while networks just don't care.
I'm a huge proponent of making publishers serve their own ads from their own domains, so they are forced to take ownership of both the issue of technical competency and abuse.
- FussyZeus 10y agoEither that, or make the networks directly responsible for the content they're serving. I don't understand why that's not the case now, if websites allow downloading of copyrighted work without authorization, or distribute illegal digital goods, they're held accountable. What makes ad networks invulnerable to this?
- nzp 10y agoIn the first case they're held accountable because business interests are compromised. In the second, no business interest is compromised by screwing up Joe Public's computer (except Joe's, but he has no material social leverage, so...). Thus no accountability for ad networks, even if there logically and legally should be.