[jmount]

Permission for what?

To see a single text ad? To see a series of gifs? To have an autoplay video start? To accumulate tracking cookies? To accumulate permanent flash storage? Permission to do some reverse lookup and call your phone? Permission to capture later browsing and re-write links in a i-Frame?

I am not currently using an adblocker/clicker (broke too many things). By a similar argument if the site doesn't want to serve content to those not reading they ads they can selectively choose not serve it. Isn't something being placed in public implying some permission? I really don't understand why so many people are unsympathetic to attempting to defend oneself.

[jbigelow76]

    >Isn't something being placed in public implying some permission?

It seems to me like it's a two way street. The site is implying permission to consume the content by placing it out there, we imply permission to have ads served at us by going to the sites knowing the ads are there.

If the site is serving up malware why patronize it to begin with? There is a distinction between an ad and malware.

[forca]

The sites don't always know the ad servers have been compromised. A person visits a site, allows ads/3rd-party cookies, is surfing with admin rights, the ad servers gladly push their drive-by malware and ta-da... infected user. It's that simple...

Blocking ads, disallowing cookies (whitelisting), blocking the general ad industry is the only safe way. It's like sex: use protection.