[speg]

I may be in the minority, but I've never used an ad blocker. Content makers need to make a living and cutting off their ad revenue seems sleazy.

That said, they may have gone too far with tracking and other excessive bloat that I might just start using one.

[smt88]

"Other excessive bloat" often includes malware. Less seriously, it also includes autoplay video and scams.

If ads were safe (i.e. text-only, no JavaScript, no video) and the publishers actually vetted the products, I wouldn't block them. I don't care that a physical NYT has ads. It's the algorithmic sale and distribution of ads that broke the model.

[ddalex]

> publishers actually vetted the products

I work in ad technology for a publisher. We put in a lot of effort to make the tech fast, lightweight and secure for our visitors - we hate bad ads too. We screen our partners, use whitelists and monitor what JS is running on the site.

This being said - things sometimes slip through the cracks. Somebody with a browser-based 0-day will pay huge CPMs to insert their ad and own thousands of machines. We can't prevent this - if you have any ideas on how, I'd love to hear it.

[smt88]

I don't think reviewing code for malware scales, especially in a competitive industry like online ads. You have to automate it, and automation isn't foolproof.

You can either: 1) disable JS in ads entirely, or 2) give all users an option to pay for an ad-free site.

Since few publishers do either, I'll continue to use my adblocker and simultaneously pay the publishers I think we can't do without (e.g. ProPublica).

[ddalex]

I agree that getting directly payed by users is a much better outcome. But the reality is that people don't want to pay us directly (in the US markets; we charge directly in other markets and it's working beautifully)

[aznumeric]

Perhaps Javascript ads should be banned by law. It would be easier to enforce compared to investigating what the corporation actually does with the info that it collected from the user.

[dwild]

> often includes malware.

Can you define often? It seems quite rare actually for a malware to be distributed online without user intervention, with the recent Firefox 0-day being one of theses cases and only touched a small proportion of people.

The web is quite secure already and sure ads network is a good vector but so is Hacker News, Reddit and Facebook, which nobody cares about (have you ever not clicked on a link on any of theses platforms and looked at the URL first?).

I seriously hate that argument of security, it's just wrong.

[Tomte]

When you visit a serious web site, like t-online.de or spiegel.de, with an up-to-date iPad and you're getting popups with porn or gambling offers that cannot be closed (they can, but reopen instantly), when you cannot use the back button anymore, and the only way to regain control of your browser is to either reboot the iPad (that's what many normal people do) or you force-close Safari... then you've caught malware from a big ad network that t-online.de or spiegel.de use.

Happened regularly about a year or two ago, certainly more often than every month, haven't seen it since, though.

> have you ever not clicked on a link on any of theses platforms and looked at the URL first?

That's not what happens.

> I seriously hate that argument of security, it's just wrong.

Maybe you should contemplate the possibility that you're wrong.

[dwild]

> to regain control of your browser is to either reboot the iPad (that's what many normal people do) or you force-close Safari...

That's seems more like a browser issue, but none the less, any links on Hacker News could do the same.

I don't consider that malware to have to close an application, just like I don't consider a malware a link that rick roll me (which still force me to close a tab ;) unless I want to stay on Youtube).

> That's not what happens.

Aren't we talking about running malicious JS? Any link you click can contains malicious JS, yet you click on that link without thinking about it, but when it's an ad that may contains malicious JS, you block it altogether.

I don't understands really what you means by not what happens.

> Maybe you should contemplate the possibility that you're wrong.

I contemplate each time I'm discussing with someone about it. I still haven't got any evidence about it.

Each time I ask someone that does it for "security purpose", when they don't answer by "do your own research" (which I always try when they say that even if it's absurd to have nothing to defends yourself), the best example they always have is either link to some report with stats that doesn't define malware, or the Forbes case of when one of their ad was a fake Java update. If that's malware, then here we go, HN now serve malware too: Click on that URL to update Java: https://forbes.com

If we were arguing blocking Javascript for security purpose, now that does make sense (still pretty unlikely, but based on news, it seems to happen much more).

[Tomte]

With ad networks you didn't click on some shady link. You just get the malware Javascript served. Without clicking or visiting anything shady. Reputable sites deliver malware through their embedding of ads.

That's not theoretical (like your "but HN could deliver malware, too), that's reality.

[dwild]

> You just get the malware Javascript served.

Which happens on any link you click on Reddit, Hacker News or Facebook. Unless you don't click on them and only visit website that you consider trustworthy, you get the exact same risk. Actually even if you may feel that a link is trustworthy, it doesn't even means it actually is, like it happened for the past Firefox 0-day exploit. This guy nearly got it by trusting that [0].

[0] https://robertheaton.com/2019/06/24/i-was-7-words-away-from-...

> That's not theoretical (like your "but HN could deliver malware, too), that's reality.

My textual example was to discredit the Forbe example. I have an hard time understanding your point about it being theoretical. Are you actually refering to my other example about links from HN that could contains malicious Javascript? That's to know if you check links or you click on them arbitrarily with all the risk that come with it.

My point is that malicious Javascript is extremely rare and when it does happen, it's targeted and doesn't use ad network. Theses vulnerabilities are gold mine and it makes no sense to put it on an ad network and hope that you'll get enough out of it before it get caught and removed/fixed. Selling it to the highest bidder or targeting a specific group of people make much more sense.

If you have any example of where an actual malware was spread using ads, I would be happy to learn about it.

I'm also curious to know if you block Javascript and if you do, why do you block ads on top of that?

[smt88]

> Can you define often?

It doesn't matter. It could be 1 out of every million hits, but it's still a source of malware. Most of us don't upgrade to the latest browser version the minute it's released, which makes us vulnerable.

> ads network is a good vector but so is Hacker News

Uhh... what are you talking about? HN has minimal JS, and they wrote it. Some ad networks are injecting JavaScript into your browser that they have never seen before and didn't write themselves.

I may trust, let's say, NYT not to serve me malware with code they wrote in their offices, but NYT is not the entity that wrote the JavaScript delivered in their ads.

> have you ever not clicked on a link on any of theses platforms and looked at the URL first?

You seem to be arguing that hyperlinks are an attack vector, which assumes such a broad interpretation of "attack vector" that the word becomes meaningless. It's like saying that an airplane is an attack vector because it can fly you into a war zone. Yes, it can... but I get to choose where I'm going.

Regarding that choice: these platforms show you the domain you're clicking through to, so you have a chance to bail. And with an ad blocker, you don't have to be as afraid to visit a malicious site. I have JS and ad blocking on by default, and I whitelist a site when it seems trustworthy enough.

[dwild]

> It doesn't matter.

It does matter, you used the word often, that word has a meaning.

> Uhh... what are you talking about? HN has minimal JS, and they wrote it. Some ad networks are injecting JavaScript into your browser that they have never seen before and didn't write themselves.

You never click on the article link? That page can be anything, thus include any JS.

> I get to choose where I'm going.

Thus you check every link before clicking on it? I feel like that's not the case, but I would applaud you to be consistent if you do.

> And with an ad blocker, you don't have to be as afraid to visit a malicious site.

Ad blockers only block ads, not malicious JS. If you visit a website which include malicious JS, it's just as bad as an ad that contains malicious JS.

> I have JS and ad blocking on by default

Blocking JS that's a good way to stop malicious JS. Blocking ads then is redundant, what does it give you more?

[luckylion]

I consider ad blockers a security issue: too many ad servers in recent history have been used as malware distributors, including Google Adsense. Since publishers don't secure their systems (Google's vulnerability here is known for years and they don't fix it but instead opted to kick out malicious advertisers if/when they catch them), adblockers offer protection.

[dwild]

Same for me, if your website cause excessive bloat with their ads, then I'll just avoid it (unless that content is worth the excessive bloat, like Youtube ads).

As soon as I can pay for the content instead, I do it.

Ads is just another way to pay... if it's too bloated (thus too expensive) you just don't get it, or go find something less bloated (aka less expensive), that's it.