Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 259 posts

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#171

Post by cooper12 »

protomyth wrote: post #98
cooper12 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PLOS uses this logo for open access: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLo... . (an open lock) Based on that Wikipedia uses a closed lock to indicate paywalled sources: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_a... . So how about these: [Closed lock] [Open lock]? (TIL HN doesn't support emoji) I think reddit also allows image use via CSS.

I would prefer not reusing closed lock since it represents encryption in most browsers.

Hmm that's a fair point even if it's in a different context since ideally each symbol would retain its own meaning. I'm not sure what a better icon would be then that would be intuitive unless one was decided upon and widely used.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#172

Post by tracker1 »

devishard wrote: post #142
econnors wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM…

> At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM prices. So, don't d…

It isn't that simple, but it should be... This is a space ripe for "safe networks" and self-serve ad platforms to take hold.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#173

Post by Silhouette »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #165
Silhouette wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exploits in jpg/png are very rare. A major security issue with probably the most popular automated image processing toolkit in existence came to light just the other day. That particular one would be used for attacking servers, but there have been client-side vulnerabilities in other common resources such as fonts before too. Assuming that just because a format is common the software processing it won't introduce any…

>A major security issue with probably the most popular automated image processing toolkit in existence came to light just the other day. Because of all the weird formats it supports. That's why I said jpg/png, not 'images'. Any software that supports 200 formats probably has severe bugs on the rare ones. Doesn't matter for making a secure image server where you can dictate the format. >In any case, the relative rarit…

Allowing known-risky formats that keep failing over and over is negligent.

But if you look at this from the opposite direction, you're essentially arguing that we should only use technologies that are known, or at least reasonably expected, to be extremely safe.

Given that in general humanity hasn't yet figured out how to create such technologies, and that numerous formats we use every day on the web to great overall benefit would not qualify, that seems a tall order.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#174

Post by Silhouette »

tracker1 wrote: post #172
devishard wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM prices. So, don't d…

It isn't that simple, but it should be... This is a space ripe for "safe networks" and self-serve ad platforms to take hold.

Isn't that space already occupied by sites like Facebook?

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#176

Post by tracker1 »

Silhouette wrote: post #174
tracker1 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't that simple, but it should be... This is a space ripe for "safe networks" and self-serve ad platforms to take hold.

Isn't that space already occupied by sites like Facebook?

I mean safe ad networks, and self-hosted ad platforms, that are served via first-party.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#177

Post by Dylan16807 »

Silhouette wrote: post #173
Dylan16807 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A major security issue with probably the most popular automated image processing toolkit in existence came to light just the other day. Because of all the weird formats it supports. That's why I said jpg/png, not 'images'. Any software that supports 200 formats probably has severe bugs on the rare ones. Doesn't matter for making a secure image server where you can dictate the format. >In any case, the relative rarit…

Allowing known-risky formats that keep failing over and over is negligent. But if you look at this from the opposite direction, you're essentially arguing that we should only use technologies that are known, or at least reasonably expected, to be extremely safe. Given that in general humanity hasn't yet figured out how to create such technologies, and that numerous formats we use every day on the web to great overall…

> But if you look at this from the opposite direction, you're essentially arguing that we should only use technologies that are known, or at least reasonably expected, to be extremely safe.

No I'm not. Go ahead and use a new technology. But don't use a proven-bad technology.

If you tried a reasonable amount and don't know about security holes, that's one thing. If someone shows you the security holes, and you don't fix them, that is where you're a bad actor.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#178

Post by riskable »

eyeinthepyramid wrote: post #137
tomp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are malicious. They're serving the high-profit ads, which obviously includes malware, where they could be serving low-profit, safe (but boring) ads. That's equivalent to pharmacists selling illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine) simply because they obviously make them more profits.

You've clearly never worked with ad networks. Even Google serves up malicious ads every once in a while.

There's a difference between merely malicious ads ("Click here for free stuff!"->takes you to a site that exploits your browser) and ads that actively exploit the browser. Any ad network can fall victim to malicious ads but only ad networks that allow embedded scripts can be abused to actively exploit browsers.

The solution is dead simple: Don't allow embedded scripts in ads. Period. End of story. Problem no longer a problem. "We're all done here."

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#179

Post by mynewtb »

return0 wrote: post #44
lmm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one has a responsibility to keep Wired or Forbes in business. Either they'll figure out a business model that works, or they won't; either way it's not the redditors' problem.

Obviously redditors like their articles, so they will have a problem too. I don't think this is black-and-white "ads are bad/readers are good" issue.

I think you overestimate the value of random sources of entertainment. Take away one, people will cry for a day, a week later it is forgotten.

We have an incredible abundance of content.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#180

Post by TheRealPomax »

Why are people commenting here, instead of in the reddit request for comments thread? It's literally a call for you to leave your comments on this matter for reddit to read, doing so here is in this case about as counter productive as it gets...
Post reply on HN