I would love to see a running list of advertising-based exploits. It would be nice to trot out every time someone complains that my ad blocker is destroying the internet because the web can't exist without putrid sinkholes of privacy violation and script spewing on every site.
The short version is "all of them". Advertising is all[1] untrusted content loaded from a third party who, by the nature of their business, cannot be an honest actor. It's like asking for a "running list" of email or phone spam frauds, scams, and exploits: It's all of them, and it will continue to be all of them, because there's BY DEFINITION no such thing as an honest email marketer or telemarketer.
I know that and you know that. However, there's a difference between the telemarketer who is trying to push you into a legitimate sale of crappy siding, and the one who's imitating Microsoft tech support to install a trojan on your machine.
In the same way, there's a difference between the ad network that's everyday scummy and the exploits like the one above. The latter make the case for ad blockers much clearer without having to get into a much broader discussion with advertising apologists
I paused Ghostery the other day, and forgot to turn it on again. I then went to a popular news site to read an article, and there were 63 separate tracker bullshits loading. 63 separate individual internet connections between me and 63 individual sites, not counting all the follow-on connections to load various content and redirects.
"Yet more"? This has always been the first and foremost reason, imo. It's why I started up with adblockers, after losing yet another computer to horrible viruses and talking to an expert about it.
Or do you mean "yet more" as in "here are more examples of the first and foremost reason to never look at advertising"?
The first and foremost reason to block ads for me is that advertising is not content, disguises itself as content, and displaces content. It literally makes the content worse and adds nothing.
The fact that all advertisers are dishonest and ad networks are the primary source of malware infection, and by serving as sources of malware infection they are accomplishing their primary-as-designed purpose[1] is the SECOND reason to block them.
But even if they were honest and clean and the second reason didn't exist, the first reason would still be overwhelming.
[1]: Oh sure, they're SUPPOSEDLY about advertising products to interested consumers, but nobody reads or clicks on ads deliberately (see the "not content" objection) and advertisers know that. So their claimed reason for existing is a blatant lie, like pro-lifer or gamergater claiming their primary motivation isn't misogyny.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-24 03:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-24 03:15 pm (UTC)[1]: Functionally.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-24 03:19 pm (UTC)In the same way, there's a difference between the ad network that's everyday scummy and the exploits like the one above. The latter make the case for ad blockers much clearer without having to get into a much broader discussion with advertising apologists
(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-24 08:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-25 06:57 am (UTC)Yeeeaaahhh, not doing that again...
(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-24 05:06 pm (UTC)Or do you mean "yet more" as in "here are more examples of the first and foremost reason to never look at advertising"?
(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-24 08:27 pm (UTC)The fact that all advertisers are dishonest and ad networks are the primary source of malware infection, and by serving as sources of malware infection they are accomplishing their primary-as-designed purpose[1] is the SECOND reason to block them.
But even if they were honest and clean and the second reason didn't exist, the first reason would still be overwhelming.
[1]: Oh sure, they're SUPPOSEDLY about advertising products to interested consumers, but nobody reads or clicks on ads deliberately (see the "not content" objection) and advertisers know that. So their claimed reason for existing is a blatant lie, like pro-lifer or gamergater claiming their primary motivation isn't misogyny.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-24 05:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-25 01:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-25 01:43 am (UTC)I know it should be, but. . . .
(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-25 12:05 pm (UTC)To wit: Depends on your country.