81–90 of 273 posts
Has Der Spiegel ever distributed malware via ads? I can't find anything solid, I can find a few scattered reports of such ... * https://plus.google.com/100667046318444095686/posts/brFPEa1j... * https://plus.google.com/+SaschaEm/posts/K9Uvc6KCHKx (TIL: Germans swear by saying "Fuck!!" in English)
What is malicious? I consider any ad that has any kind of tracking to be malicous. I think they did that.
Since this submission relates to blocking ads and trackers, I think it's worth bringing up that uBlock Origin [0] is better than Adblock Plus in (all?) ways (see the README for more details). I migrated to it a few years ago and overall I've been very happy with the outcome. I'm opposed to all tracking that isn't opt-in by default. I haven't thought about the topic at great lengths, so there may be cases which I'm fa…
I tried to ditch ABP in favour of uBlock 1-or-so years ago and I found it way worse in terms of the amount of blocked ads.
Since this submission relates to blocking ads and trackers, I think it's worth bringing up that uBlock Origin [0] is better than Adblock Plus in (all?) ways (see the README for more details). I migrated to it a few years ago and overall I've been very happy with the outcome. I'm opposed to all tracking that isn't opt-in by default. I haven't thought about the topic at great lengths, so there may be cases which I'm fa…
That's only if people agree with your ideology. Instead of making blanket statements which are inherently subjective, just explain why you prefer Adblock Plus.
Personally, I vastly prefer Adblock Plus. I have no ideological objection to advertising or tracking in general, I just don't want intrusive ads. ABP does an excellent job of filtering out intrusive ads while still allowing me to support the sites I like where advertising is minimal.
I love the ad-supported web and strongly disagree with the notion that it's against users' interests. Getting free content and services in a competitive marketplace without switching costs is invaluable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
90% of the whitelist is not paid, and that 10% helps develop the program. Not only that, you are asked upon installation whether or not to allow for acceptable ads (which is ticked on by default, but still not such a controversial point as you make it sound).
> and that 10% helps develop the program Develop in what sense? uBlock origin is at least 10% better than ABP just by not doing that. The _only_ thing people want from such a program is to block all ads and trackers. That's it. That's the feature list. You decide to compromise the single goal to fund further "development"? How does that make any sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried to ditch ABP in favour of uBlock 1-or-so years ago and I found it way worse in terms of the amount of blocked ads.
It is important to use uBlock origin and not uBlock. The latter was an error. Otherwise, it is impossible: the blacklist are the same, the capabilities are the same, the only difference being that ABP will allow some ads by design.
Now with ABP taking money to pass certain ads, that something different, I myself don't feel it is ethical, so I uninstalled the software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
90% of the whitelist is not paid, and that 10% helps develop the program. Not only that, you are asked upon installation whether or not to allow for acceptable ads (which is ticked on by default, but still not such a controversial point as you make it sound).
> and that 10% helps develop the program Develop in what sense? uBlock origin is at least 10% better than ABP just by not doing that. The _only_ thing people want from such a program is to block all ads and trackers. That's it. That's the feature list. You decide to compromise the single goal to fund further "development"? How does that make any sense?
That's if 1. you stayed opted into the acceptable ads program when you used ABP and 2. you consider all ads equally bad and harmful.
I didn't and I don't, and I happen to agree with GP. I use ublock, but I found a constant stream of false positives and false negatives. The worst is with popups actually; a torrenting website I used to visit started doing "on page click" popups and ublock doesn't block those; ABP does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
90% of the whitelist is not paid, and that 10% helps develop the program. Not only that, you are asked upon installation whether or not to allow for acceptable ads (which is ticked on by default, but still not such a controversial point as you make it sound).
> and that 10% helps develop the program Develop in what sense? uBlock origin is at least 10% better than ABP just by not doing that. The _only_ thing people want from such a program is to block all ads and trackers. That's it. That's the feature list. You decide to compromise the single goal to fund further "development"? How does that make any sense?
I don't give a single hoot about tracking and want quality ads. Do I not exist?
In what situation is endangering someone's business model grounds for their illegality?
Also, I don't get why larger content owners don't self publish ads. It should be possible to have an appliance running on your own infrastructure or cloud, that gets proxyed requests from your own domain. That way the content it indistinguishable from the ads (or at least heavily merged). If you randomize the placement of ads / content images and both come from opaque URLs (ex: http://media.example.com/:some-uuid) it wouldn't be apparent which should be filtered.
Biggest issue I can see if that ad buyers would have to either trust the publisher or control the appliance. I suppose the latter is possible as if the request is proxyed you can align the counts of "Requests I've sent you" with "Requests you've received" to reconcile if there's cheating / lying happening.
This may be too complicated for a smallish site, but well within the technical capabilities of Der Spiegel, NY Times, etc.