Check out my site and let me know what you think? I serve only images that are self-hosted and have found that my readers really appreciate it.

Any site that served ads like that I'd be happy to white list. I'd go further and be happy for uBlock or adblock to never block those sort of ads (uBlock didn't btw).

  * Static images
  * tastefully integrated
  * Self hosted, so no networks tracking me worldwide
  * No JS

I can still read in comfort. Much like newspapers and magazines used to be.

I'd even be happy to click, and perhaps buy from ads like that.

This comes from someone who goes elsewhere rather than turn off noscript or uBlock. :)

Well done, you invented the future of online advertising. Oh, wait...

Speaking of "tastefully integrated"...

I gave up and installed ad block for my parents after they've complained about lewd ads on the local news website.

This is how its "above the fold" looks like without blocked ads (I put red outlines around parts that are content): http://imgur.com/7g5ZmcG

Right now there're no porn ads, but usually it serves them too.

Looks like your editorial content is in the main left-hand column and the adverts are in the narrower right hand column when viewed on a laptop with a 1280px wide screen (linux/firefox).

I have a hosts file that blocks most of the ad servers but do not have any plugins within Firefox that disable js or block adverts. Your page looks complete - i.e. nothing showing 'unable to load' signs as one might expect. Privacy Badger shows 4 trackers (amber)...

cse.google.com www.google.com platform.twitter.com syndication.twitter.com

The adverts appear to be smallish static images with links back to office furniture companies &c.

I found the SpaceStor advert for their 'railway carriage' internal booth quite interesting so I clicked on it and was taken to a UK Web site - are you processing location information or did I just get lucky?

Interesting example to pass round.

They are UK-based. Glad you found the experience a decent one, the more I hear about ad-blocking, the more I feel encouraged to just make ads more simple and it seems to be paying off.

This is why I love HN. You randomly find the people behind things you love. OS is great (Although I used to love it more when I knew the companies being listed).

I probably publish the same number of offices from household name type companies as before, but there are definitely many more others now.

If you dial the office browse are in to show tech companies there are a good portion that the audience here will recognize: http://officesnapshots.com/offices/?fwp_industry=technology

Worked nice in mobile Firefox.

Didn't do any technical check, only verified visually.

Doesn't make sense.

Well some can, and do. However the ad business has long since become a race to the bottom. Refusing customer demands is not a way to "win" a race to the bottom.

There are some reasonable reasons for the javascript, like a/b testing, seeing where in the ad you clicked, how long you waited before clicking, etc.

How is that not a CFAA violation?

Why would it be?

At a high level, a plaintiff would claim that advertisers were using javascript to gain "unauthorized access" to "information from any protected computer".

It's been tried before. Google "CFAA flash cookies" or "Halperin v Text Enhance".

Didn't pan out. The plaintiffs typically fail to meet the $5k damage minimum within CFAA. I assume there are other strategies advertisers could use to defend it, but the $5k minimum is an easy path.

Well, in class actions, individual class-member damages are often small. Like $50 or whatever. But there are millions of class members.

Also tried and failed. Something legal about failing a test for appropriate aggregation.

Edit: A snippet of an article about the Halperin case...

'the court says that it can’t aggregate the harm to other putative class members to satisfy the damage threshold unless the damage arises out of a “single act.” And that poses a problem as the complaint is currently pled. The surreptitious install of the program by thousands of consumers (and putative class members) is not a “single act,” so Halperin can’t rely on this “act” when aggregating. Halperin argued that he shouldn’t be subject to the no-aggregation rule.'

So how come botnets aren't legal?

Sounds like you're trying to compare a civil class action lawsuit to a criminal case.

Additionally, if the botnet does what it typically does..that is, coordinate to attack a specific website, that sounds a lot like a "single act".

I'm not trying to argue with you, just noting that others have tried to persue your line of thought and failed.

Edit: Regarding "I'm just wondering how ads/trackers get such a pass from CFAA"

To date, they get a pass because nobody can show $5k damages for a "single act". Of course, that may not be the only defense strategy they could employ. It's worked well enough thus far that they haven't needed to argue anything else.

In the reverse direction, where an end user does something like "add some funny thing to the url" on a popular website, it's easy to show $5k of damages, because the target isn't one person's home PC.

I'm just wondering how ads/trackers get such a pass from CFAA. My initial comment was about JavaScript, but Halperin is about adware install! And isn't merely creating botnets illegal? Even if you use them only for good things.

OK, so there are criminal and civil liabilities for pwning corporate websites. But it's OK for corporate websites to pwn user devices. Because there's a $5K damages threshold for CFAA, and also a damages threshold for tort class representatives.

That's arguably a huge bug in the legal system. Maybe there's a niche for private compensation services. Anonymously crowd-funded. Somali model.

Unauthorized snooping?

Maybe this seems silly. Because we're all so used to it.

But think. If some kid gets access to foo.com, that's a crime, no? So how is it not a crime to access random users' devices without permission?