On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:44:22 +0100,
Richard Kettlewell , in
 wrote:
>  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.

Why hack those sites when you can simply *purchase their
services*. They're not checking your ads for embedded malware.

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05