4 ms·

The easy solution for sites that need revenue is to abandon this stupid arms race and do two things: 1. Force their ad networks to police ads for malware, movi

The easy solution for sites that need revenue is to abandon this stupid arms race and do two things: 1. Force their ad networks to police ads for malware, movies, tracking code, and slow-loading crap. 2. Stop sharing private user data with others. I would turn off my ad blocker and incognito mode tomorrow if e.g. the Washington Post would take these steps.

MiddleEndian 7y ago
Regarding 2: Probably impossible. Regarding 1: hold websites and ad networks legally culpable for delivering malware from ads. Probably also not possible. Keep blocking ads.
- glloydell 7y ago
  I agree with you on 2 most likely not being possible (or reasonable) given that the revenue model is based in sharing user data, but I'm not so sure that 1 is completely out of the question. I don't necessarily think that it's reasonable to have a zero tolerance policy for ad networks or the sites serving them regarding malware (cuz perfect security doesn't exist), but what about requiring some basic standard of due diligence for the ad networks themselves?
  - MiddleEndian 7y ago
    Zero tolerance, maybe maybe not. But if I ran a restaurant and kept ordering from a supplier that kept giving me deliberately poisoned meat, I should be held responsible. And there's a reason ads are slow, easily blocked, client-side javascript. Site operators know they serve malware and don't want it on their own servers.
scarejunba 7y ago
If you have your ad blocker on and the WaPo did this, how would you know to turn it off?
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  First, word of mouth. Second (better solution) a non-profit certification authority something like Underwriters Laboratories that monitors ad networks for malware, and gives its seal of approval for good ones. WaPo could then advertise that seal on their website. Then of course when an ad network screws up you have a certificate revocation problem, but that's another story.

MiddleEndian 7y ago

Regarding 2: Probably impossible. Regarding 1: hold websites and ad networks legally culpable for delivering malware from ads. Probably also not possible. Keep blocking ads.

glloydell 7y ago
I agree with you on 2 most likely not being possible (or reasonable) given that the revenue model is based in sharing user data, but I'm not so sure that 1 is completely out of the question. I don't necessarily think that it's reasonable to have a zero tolerance policy for ad networks or the sites serving them regarding malware (cuz perfect security doesn't exist), but what about requiring some basic standard of due diligence for the ad networks themselves?
- MiddleEndian 7y ago
  Zero tolerance, maybe maybe not. But if I ran a restaurant and kept ordering from a supplier that kept giving me deliberately poisoned meat, I should be held responsible. And there's a reason ads are slow, easily blocked, client-side javascript. Site operators know they serve malware and don't want it on their own servers.

scarejunba 7y ago

If you have your ad blocker on and the WaPo did this, how would you know to turn it off?

dreamcompiler 7y ago
First, word of mouth. Second (better solution) a non-profit certification authority something like Underwriters Laboratories that monitors ad networks for malware, and gives its seal of approval for good ones. WaPo could then advertise that seal on their website. Then of course when an ad network screws up you have a certificate revocation problem, but that's another story.