2 ms·
It's simpler then that. The advertising based site wants to show you the ad, they have no incentive to implement SSL. There's no https://espn.com https://espn.c
by guelo 12y ago
It's simpler then that. The advertising based site wants to show you the ad, they have no incentive to implement SSL. There's no https://espn.com https://espn.com, for example. Even if they did implement https it would be mixed content because the ad networks' iframes or whatever are http.
The solution is things like NoScript or Adblock on Firefox (not Chrome which downloads the ad and just hides it). Or blackholing the ad networks in /etc/hosts.
- eunice 12y ago>(not Chrome which downloads the ad and just hides it) I thought this hadn't been the case for several years now? Am I wrong?
- magicalist 12y agoNo, it hasn't been the case since 2010: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/20/chrome_does_resource_blocking/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/20/chrome_does_resource...
- julianj 12y agoAgreed. An entry in the hosts file for ad dot turn dot com could be a temporary fix-- until they use a different subdomain. A combination of the above is probably the most optimal solution.