Can malicious ad js be fixed (from publisher perspective) by fetching & interpreting it with an interpreter written in js rather than directly executing it in the browser?
-
-
And yes, always through the interpreter. Abort & try a different ad as soon as it breaks the rules.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sure, that's terrible. But are you _sure_ it ends up affecting the media outlet's bottom line? If the cost of lost subscriptions combined with the number that some fancy MBAs assigned to "loss of trust" ends up less than the cost of fixing their ads, then it won't happen.
-
It's not easily measurable, and presently has no competitive disadvantage because they all do it. But it would if some made a point not to.
-
But "having less shitty ads" might not drive "growth" as much as "print more clickbait" so this would need to be justified. Welcome to capitalism I guess?
-
The way this would happen is a FOSS or reasonably priced commercial ad-sandboxer product appearing that's easy for publishers to install & use. They won't develop it themselves.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.