Rob Morley  writes:
> Richard Kettlewell  wrote:
>> Rob Morley  writes:

>>> That's an understandable attitude, but short-sighted.  Someone has
>>> to pay for content and delivery, you can't expect hobbyists and
>>> philanthropists to sustain the current level of internet
>>> consumption.
>>
>> Then perhaps the level will fall.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, nobody advocating against ad blockers even
>> attempts to address the other reason to use them, which is that they
>> are security software, mitigating the threat of ad-delivered malware.
>
> I wasn't advocating against ad blockers, just responding to the
> argument that there's no good reason for advertising on the internet.
> It is indeed a security concern when reputable publishers embed third
> party advertising over which they have no control and which may contain
> malware, particularly of the "drive by" no user idiocy required
> variety.  A viable defence may include filters to block known evil
> sites rather than all advertising.

Ad-delivered malware doesn’t come from “known evil sites”, it comes from
ad sites that have been hacked.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05