• MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah, can you take a “Veteran cybersecurity expert” who doesn’t generally use an adblocker serious?

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      3 months ago

      Security knowledge and ethical concerns are two separate things. Whether we like it or not, we pay online creators through private data we must give to entities who will use it against our best interests.

      • Patches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Uh the safest thing you can do for your PC is an ad-blocker. Advertising companies don’t even pretend to not put malware up as legitimate ads.

        It isn’t an ethical concern and hasn’t been since the 90s. It is a security concern to allow ads as an attack vector.

        • reinei@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          Whaat‽ You mean auto downloading and executing foreign JavaScript in a users webpage from some server/CDN I might not even know myself as an ad company could be an attack vector? Never!

          (This mostly for those people who may not know that some [most? Dunno don’t have a source for this] ad networks literally allow advertisers to inject small chunks of html into pages for “more interactive/better ads”!!)

          • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            executing foreign JavaScript

            This is a great point I try to convey to my less-technical friends and family. Looking at a webpage is not like changing the channel on a tv of old. Looking at a webpage pulls code from who knows where and executes it on your local machine.

            These advertisers expect that I should blindly trust them to execute code on my cpu, in my memory, on my machine? Yeah fuck that, it’s a privilege. I don’t invite every hobo walking by to come into my house and take a shit in my toilet.

            If they don’t like that not everyone executes their syphilis-ridden javascript, then they should put their shit behind a paywall. But they won’t, since they know they don’t have a product worth paying for.

        • Atemu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          What a great argument! You didn’t even read the first sentence…

          It isn’t an ethical concern and hasn’t been since the 90s.

          You’ll have to explain to me how not compensating someone for their work has been ethical since the 90s.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’ll have to explain to me how not compensating someone for their work has been ethical since the 90s.

            Opening my computer up to Malware is not worth the fraction of a penny that the person who did the work will receive from my click.

            • Atemu@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              To the person receiving the money, it is worth it. Else they wouldn’t be doing it.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I’m glad to hear they are willing to sacrifice the safety of my system for their fraction of a penny.

          • Patches@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            https://www.statista.com/chart/29626/ads-blocked-removed-by-google-by-enforced-policy/

            Deceptive Ads & Malware Make Up Bulk of Blocked Google Ads

            5.2 Billion Bad Ads removed in 2022. 1.8 Billion more than in 2021.

            Were they removed? Yes. Did they show up prior to removal to real human beings? Also yes.

            https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/malvertising-statistics/

            in the first half of 2023 alone, with phishing URLs leading the charge with a 140.7% increase.

            Security Gladiators reports that on average, of every 100 ads that are published, at least 1 contains malicious code.

            A report by Confiant found that in Q3 of 2021, 1 of every 108 ad impressions was highly disruptive or dangerous.

            Safety Detectives’ malvertising report showed that the global cost of malware was $500 billion per year in 2015, but in 2021 that figure cost an average of $500 billion per month.

            • Atemu@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              Cool story bro but you clearly still didn’t even read the first sentence of what I wrote.

              • Patches@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I don’t give a shit how they get paid because the method they chose violates my personal safety.

                I’m done arguing with an obvious troll.

                • Atemu@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Yes and that’s precisely the point. You can make the decision not to pay and there are good reasons to do so (I do so too) but you must recognise that someone is still not getting paid for their work.

      • Holyginz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Fuck that. We don’t have to give them anything. They need to show they actually have put in the effort to protect their viewers. Until then, I refuse to do anything less than use everything available to me to block their ads. The days of whitelisting websites is over.