[bad_user]

I was originally against ad-blockers, because it provides me with an incentive to look for alternatives and I also want to reward websites that don't do this shit.

However, it's because of scams and malware pushed by means of ads that I started using ad-blockers myself and I recommend it to all my non-technical friends.

It's also the reason for why on my Android I'm now using Firefox. For Google to not provide at least a glimpse of a plan for Chrome's add-ons support on Android is unacceptable, for one because I now expect my browser to have add-ons support and I originally started using Chrome based on this expectation and because on mobile these websites are even more aggressive in pushing their ads. And with Firefox I can use AdBlock Plus on my Android, with uBlock coming soon.

[thaumaturgy]

We tell our customers that ad blockers are their first line of defense against malware on the web, and it's true. Web ads have been bad for years and continue to get worse, and content providers aren't doing enough yet to police the advertising on their site.

Did you happen to see the recent link about the AdSense redirects? e.g. http://blog.sucuri.net/2015/01/adsense-abused-with-malvertis...

[eli]

If your customers have machines that can be hijacked by drive-by malware, then blocking ads is not going to help them much in the long run.

[PeterisP]

Pretty much everyone has machines that can be hijacked by drive-by malware - there have been cases where 0-day exploits have been used for such attacks through targeted ads on reputable websites.

Following other best practices doesn't help you to protect against that, but preventing third parties from injecting arbitrary content on the [reputable/largescale/https] websites you're viewing does close one attack channel. One out of many, but a valuable one.

[thaumaturgy]

Everything everyone else said, plus: fake system alert ads are still around (and still fool a lot of people), fake download buttons are still common on free software download sites, and deceptive ads for junk or nuisance software are pretty common. PC Optimizer Pro sounds like a pretty good deal until you install it and it throws a teenage house party on your computer. And if that's not all bad enough, there are the fake phone support numbers for various services that keep coming up in Google or Yahoo. Google's dealt with some of that, but not too long ago you could type "Yahoo support" into Google and there would be a list of prominent and official-looking 1-800 numbers and support sites, none of which were clearly enough labeled as ads for computer novices, and all of them took you to remote support scams.

I hate dealing with client-side malware. It's a time-consuming headache for my techs, it's frustrating and sometimes dangerous for the customers, and it's a loss leader for my business. I've put a fair amount of effort into never doing a malware removal or system restoration for the same customer more than once, and ad blocking software has probably been the single most effective and reliable piece of prevention.

[allendoerfer]

In a perfect world, were humans make no mistakes, you are right. In the real world however it is best to think about security on every layer of the system to guard the other parts, which might have unknown bugs.

[sp332]

Even iOS was vulnerable to drive-bys like that. No one is that safe.

[astrodust]

Same. I like to support sites, but the ads that come through are so exceedingly stupid that it's actually insulting.

This sort of ad is all too typical. They mash up some creative, add some annoying animation, and carpet-bomb the ad channels with it.

Sorry, if you can't screen your ads more effectively (The Deck, for example) I'm blocking you.

[yuhong]

Also consider blocking Flash, which is probably more effective than ad blocking against exploits these days.

[rimantas]

I am thinking, maybe I should get an ad-blocker. Not tu reward the webistes, but stop punishing poor folks who buy ads and then waste money showing them to me, because I never click them…

[bad_user]

The mistake you're doing is thinking only about impulse or intent driven advertising. But there's another form of advertising, which is brand advertising (i.e. CPV).

Why do you think that Coca-Cola or Pepsi insist on airing expensive ads in prime time or on conducting huge marketing campaigns? Because given hundreds of choices in a super-market, you'll go for the ones that have a brand you've heard about and this is because people hate having choices ;-)

And the funny thing is, even if you're isolated from mass-media and using ad-blockers on the net, you still end up noticing marketing campaigns on Facebook, or being suckered into reading ingeniously planted news pieces on the web, or ending up making choices because of your ads-infused friends.

Thing is, advertising affects you and the products you end up buying, even if you think it doesn't, unless you're completely isolated of course.

[coldpie]

You should definitely get an ad blocker, for many reasons. If everyone blocks ads, content won't stop being produced. They'll just figure out another way to fund it.

[saiya-jin]

ads are paid by click, no? so if you don't click, no harm done

[nkozyra]

Some are CPM/RPM, some are CPC and some ultimately require an arbitrary "action" which can sometimes be a conversion.

There are plenty of ad networks that will pay you some nominal amount just to display an ad to 'users.'