Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

Re:Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking ... by wernercd on Friday April 14, 2017 @04:23PM (#14116990)

Just a throw out question:

One of the biggest issues (IMO) is the security threat... if there is a second copy that "we" don't see, doesn't that mean that the second copy can do "bad things" still?

Case in Point: Forbes requests you disable ad-blocker... then serves pop-under malware:

http://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/security/forbes-...

I could stomach ads - just like I stomached commercials on TV shows... you get used to them and they become white noise... if the ads were unobtrusive and non-invasive (IE: Google Search Results)... it's full screen, pop-up/under, audio, video, etc. Then throw on top of that malware...

What's to stop the malware from biting on that second copy?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking ... by unholythree on Friday April 14, 2017 @05:05PM (#14117370)

This is what matters most to me. My dislike of ads are out of fear of malicious code first, tracking second, and wasting my bandwidth third.

The simple gif banner ads of yore were tolerable enough.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking ... by bigbugbag on Monday April 17, 2017 @09:10PM (#14135779)

Neuromarketing proved that they do not become white noise, you just stop consciously noticing them and how they affect you[1]. But even if you somehow developed some kind of immunity, you'd still be affected by ads because advertising costs are factored in product prices, when you buy something even if you never seen any of the ads for this product, you're still paying for them.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing#Study_examples

[ Parent | on HN ]