We can debate the morality of ad-blocking after we address the for-profit malware distribution platforms known as "online advertisers."
-
-
Replying to @adamshostack
@adamshostack@thegrugq i worked in antifraud team and we hated malware & other suspicious advertisers. maybe that's only our company, but2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @strangeqargo
@strangeqargo@adamshostack@thegrugq If you allow flash or any format of ads except jpegs you re-encoded yourself, you're enabling malware.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@strangeqargo@adamshostack@thegrugq Likewise if you're not reviewing content for fake UI elements, you're enabling malware.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker and just what fraction of a percentage of the populace has these capabilities?@strangeqargo@adamshostack@thegrugq1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotTimothy
@NotTimothy@strangeqargo@adamshostack@thegrugq Hm? I'm talking about ad networks' responsibilities, not users'.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker Wish I could trust them with that, but history says we can't. So it falls on the users.@strangeqargo@adamshostack@thegrugq1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotTimothy
Rich Felker Retweeted adam shostack
@NotTimothy@strangeqargo@adamshostack@thegrugq Did you read the original tweet?https://twitter.com/adamshostack/status/641289612388794368 …Rich Felker added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker yep, and relying on them to make new barriers to getting ad revenue seems naieve IMO@strangeqargo@adamshostack@thegrugq1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@NotTimothy @strangeqargo @adamshostack @thegrugq The point is that, unless/until they do, they have no standing to fuss about ad-blockers.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.