4 ms·
Is that distinction relevant to the user? I'm still blocking ads and javascript everywhere I browse. If the ad networks are the ones distributing this malware
by na85 9y ago
Is that distinction relevant to the user?
I'm still blocking ads and javascript everywhere I browse. If the ad networks are the ones distributing this malware, they're either complicit or negligent. Either way, the source of the malware from my perspective as a user is still "ads".
- soared 9y agoI just commonly see users get mad at "advertisers" when in cases like this, advertisers aren't involved at all. Not to say they don't carry some blame, but its blackhats doing the major wrong. Advertisers and publishers should pressure ad networks and browsers to do a better job fighting fraud though.
- tyingq 9y agoIf they want to direct feedback to the right place, sure. Ad networks need the pressure. Advertisers can't do much to help.
- na85 9y agoWell, I don't think most users care about directing feedback. I know I personally would rather just deprive them of the impressions with noscript and/or ad block. I don't have time to be submitting complaints to faceless Internet corporations. I just want to use the web without being bothered.
- tyingq 9y agoYou don't have to, but I suspect your initial reaction is with the publisher anyway (vs the advertisers).
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoFor the user, no. But this is a technology forum so the distinction is relevant.