Can you please provide me a list of malware-free sites ? Or is this a thinly-veiled "blame the victim" attack because its funny to shame people who watch porn ? I've heard that sophomoric attack so many times when talking about malware: "oh, malware ? I've never had any. I'm not the kind of person who goes on __THOSE__ sites, hurr hurr!"

My point was not about porn at all. The discussion was opened up to a wider context about all websites with ads. Purposefully misconstruing what I said to make it sound like I'm "blaming" someone is quite dishonest of you.

I didn't purposefully misconstrue, I asked you if that was your intention. But there's no doubt that you purposefully blame the victims of malware instead of blaming the criminals who purvey it.

Again, I'd like your List of Malware-Free Sites, so I dont get anymore malware.

Your style of asking seems to be assuming something ridiculous and putting it as a question. You'll have to find someone else who will entertain your style of writing. This is my last reply. Bye.

How are you supposed to avoid sites with malware unless you know about it beforehand? How are you supposed to do that without some sort of list? You don't appear to have thought through your own suggestion.

No one is talking about specific malicious sites, people are talking about entire ad networks being infected, something that has happened multiple times in the past.

When every site gets their ads served from the same central location and that location is compromised, everyone is at risk unless they have strict anti-ad rules implemented.

Every site doesn't do that, though. Almost B2B (non-consumer) sites sell their ads directly to clients (major companies) and don't have malware come through. It's only the ad networks that really are guilty of selling ads to people they don't know and getting the bad creative. If ad blocking software was really about stopping malware they would recognize this and have a way of certifying sites that do business directly and don't allow ad networks.

My point is, if you don't like ads, go to websites without ads. That way you reward websites who have found alternate means of compensation.

Its as simple as if you don't like games/songs/media with DRM, buy the non-DRM ones and reward the authors.

Why are you trying to bring about change with one hand tied behind your back? If there was a public vote about whether to outlaw the use DRM software would you vote against it on principle because, "if people really didn't want DRM, they wouldn't buy products with DRM"?

If a large enough segment of the population uses an ad-blocker it signals a clear and direct message to site-owners and ad network's wallets that you won't put up with ads and that they won't make money from you until they come up with a different business model. What could be better? It's way more effective than just leaving, emailing the webmaster, or writing an angry blog post.

I long for the day when I don't need an incredibly aggressive content filter on the web for it to be usable, safe, and private.

>If a large enough segment of the population uses an ad-blocker it signals a clear and direct message to site-owners and ad network's wallets that you won't put up with ads and that they won't make money from you until they come up with a different business model.

They're going to take the 'easier' route of trying to keep bypassing the blockers than changing the entire revenue model. That's why supporting websites which are founded on a non-advertising revenue model is crucial.

>It's way more effective than just leaving, emailing the webmaster, or writing an angry blog post.

What argument do you present for this?

The fact that we're talking about adblocking instead of the other countermeasures he listed.

I don't frequent sites with lots of ads, but that doesn't preclude me blocking any and all other ads.

I thought I didn't visit sites with lots of ads, until I saw what one of the sites I used looked without my ad blocker on. It was horrendous.

You claimed you were for people getting rewarded for their work, just not by using methods that you don't agree with.

If you are truly principled then you would avoid going to websites that have those ads and only go to websites whose revenue model is aligned with your interests.

I try in all possible situations to only visit sites that I think aren't causing damage to the landscape of the internet but again, that is a separate issue to me choosing to block all ads. When I browse a content aggregator or a friend sends me a link I'm not going to research each site before clicking the link, I'm just going to click the link if I think it will be interesting. And I'm not going to be okay with exposing myself to security vulnerabilities. Browsing the web I have a right to protect myself, and I'm not going to be somehow guilted into removing that protection.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So what do you do for a website that doesn't have ads? That website could still attack with you JS bugs, HTML rendering bugs, JPG/PNG rendering bugs, etc.

You're still not really completely protecting yourself. So it seems to me like you're hedging your bets by assuming that primarily websites which have ads are a liability, but websites with no ads, but with equal opportunity for exploiting vulnerabilities are not.

To be fair, there's good history of this to back his assertion. Ad networks have frequently had exploit kits dropped on them.

Not only that but the ad networks also get all your details which makes Internet advertising quite unlike other advertising.

If the ad networks have no "ethics" I see no reason to feel an ethical obligation back. Sucks for content providers, yeah, but if they have to die to get rid of the sketchy ad networks so be it.

I'd be willing to whitelist ad networks which were sandboxed and could only show me straight up images proxied through the first party site. Anything more than that and I'll show some control of my own hardware and block it. Ultimately, it's my hardware, if it does anything I don't like, I have a right to fix it.

It's easier to not live in countries with a lot of racists, duh.

You make little to no sense. We're talking about voluntarily clicking on a link.

The similarity lies in that, just as with deciding to move into a country, it's hard to find out in advance whether bad factors are there and how bad they are; and once you actually like it there, relatively pricey to give up on what you like just to avoid the bad factors. Plus, just like almost every country has some racists, nowadays almost every website has ad software that can be a potential vector for malwaare.

>nowadays almost every website has ad software that can be a potential vector for malwaare.

If you're concerned with what's possible then any website that has JS is a potential vector for malware. Then you can just disable JS and browse the web that way. But wait, websites can also attack you with HTML browser bugs with malformed HTML, or PNG or JPG renderer bugs with malformed images, etc etc. At some point, you're going to have to be practical and compromise or something. My point is if you want to be principled, then reward websites with no ads by visiting them and don't reward websites who have ads.

I do block all JS content by default and have to whitelist individual sites. I consider that in tandem with my adblocking. I'm not going to give up either.

Yes, thank you, you accurately recognized the ridiculousness of your initial proposition.

I'm amazed that "don't go to sites with malware or malware ads" being the same as "don't live in countries with racists" is hard for you to understand, and i feel sorry for you.