> running uBO as a "malware" blocker just happens to siphon up legitimate ads in the same bucket in the process (which is what I think is your point) My point'

> running uBO as a "malware" blocker just happens to siphon up legitimate ads in the same bucket in the process (which is what I think is your point) My point's actually sort-of the inverse of that. My point is that, by describing uBO as a malware blocker, you are suggesting that "ads that are not malware are fine". That's a position you're entitled to take, but I don't agree with it - +1 to the sibling comment that rightly points out that "ads are malware for your brain". Ads are a problem, and they should be blocked. The fact that you happen to be able to also block malware with an ad-blocker is a happy coincidence - but even if that wasn't the case (i.e. even if ad-blockers _only_ blocked non-malware ads), they would still be good, moral, and justified.