3 ms·

Seriously: when was the last time you were infected with malware from ads? This is a talking point from a different millennium. Almost the same for redirects,

Seriously: when was the last time you were infected with malware from ads? This is a talking point from a different millennium. Almost the same for redirects, at least for reputable publishers that will be most harmed by this. This attitude has already resulted in almost all professional, reliable news sources to implement (metered) paywalls. So instead of being informed by dozens of sources, citizens now get their news from just reading the headlines on Facebook, or sometimes the single site they are willing to pay for. You can't make decisions at the voting booth without being informed. This is such an obvious harm to the fabric of democracy. Populism, corruption, and authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide. But at least you're not being annoyed by some ads.

anoncake 8y ago
> This is such an obvious harm to the fabric of democracy. Ads are an obvious harm to the fabric of democracy. If a news organization depends on ads, advertisers have power over it. Ads make the press less independent.
davb 8y ago
> Seriously: when was the last time you were infected with malware from ads? This is a talking point from a different millennium. I still see this very frequently. I work in tech, so broadly speaking, I'm less likely to find my machine infected by malware from ads because I know enough not to fall for their tricks. Smart, but less technical, friends and family end up with malware infected devices all the time due to malvertising. > This attitude has already resulted in almost all professional, reliable news sources to implement (metered) paywalls. So instead of being informed by dozens of sources, citizens now get their news from just reading the headlines on Facebook, or sometimes the single site they are willing to pay for. I'd actually posit that the reverse is true. Because advertising pays publishers for reader's eyeballs regardless of the quality of content on their websites, fake news and clickbait are rampant. Harmful news outlets flourish because they don't need to convince anyone to pay for their bullshit stories - just get enough people to click or share. If they relied on users paying to read their stories, I reckon a lot of ad-supported extremist sites would die overnight. There shouldn't be a financial incentive to drive clicks and shares regardless of content quality.
pdkl95 8y ago
> You can't make decisions at the voting booth without being informed. True, but that doesn't mean traditional "professional, reliable news sources" are the best (or only) way for people to gain the necessary information. Especially after the massive merging of media businesses over the last few decades, the reliability of these "professionals" has suffered. > This is such an obvious harm to the fabric of democracy. You have that backwards; it's surveillance capitalism - that is currently ruining democracy[1]. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and-a-the-age-of-surveillance-capital.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and...
Nasrudith 8y ago
The reason why malware isn't as much of a problem is because of the blocking - it wasn't big class actions or criminal charges that got them to clean up more. The vulnerability is still there so it gets blocked as basic self defense. Malware infections increase conversion rates for the blockers.

anoncake 8y ago

> This is such an obvious harm to the fabric of democracy. Ads are an obvious harm to the fabric of democracy. If a news organization depends on ads, advertisers have power over it. Ads make the press less independent.

davb 8y ago

> Seriously: when was the last time you were infected with malware from ads? This is a talking point from a different millennium. I still see this very frequently. I work in tech, so broadly speaking, I'm less likely to find my machine infected by malware from ads because I know enough not to fall for their tricks. Smart, but less technical, friends and family end up with malware infected devices all the time due to malvertising. > This attitude has already resulted in almost all professional, reliable news sources to implement (metered) paywalls. So instead of being informed by dozens of sources, citizens now get their news from just reading the headlines on Facebook, or sometimes the single site they are willing to pay for. I'd actually posit that the reverse is true. Because advertising pays publishers for reader's eyeballs regardless of the quality of content on their websites, fake news and clickbait are rampant. Harmful news outlets flourish because they don't need to convince anyone to pay for their bullshit stories - just get enough people to click or share. If they relied on users paying to read their stories, I reckon a lot of ad-supported extremist sites would die overnight. There shouldn't be a financial incentive to drive clicks and shares regardless of content quality.

pdkl95 8y ago

> You can't make decisions at the voting booth without being informed. True, but that doesn't mean traditional "professional, reliable news sources" are the best (or only) way for people to gain the necessary information. Especially after the massive merging of media businesses over the last few decades, the reliability of these "professionals" has suffered. > This is such an obvious harm to the fabric of democracy. You have that backwards; it's surveillance capitalism - that is currently ruining democracy[1]. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and-a-the-age-of-surveillance-capital.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and...

Nasrudith 8y ago

The reason why malware isn't as much of a problem is because of the blocking - it wasn't big class actions or criminal charges that got them to clean up more. The vulnerability is still there so it gets blocked as basic self defense. Malware infections increase conversion rates for the blockers.