+1 to Adblock and Ublock. This is the main reason I will block almost ALL ads. At least these had you click them to get the malware rather than just automatically giving it to you as it loaded up
[QUOTE=TheTalon;48908132]+1 to Adblock and Ublock. This is the main reason I will block almost ALL ads. At least these had you click them to get the malware rather than just automatically giving it to you as it loaded up[/QUOTE]
Yeah, honestly. I can handle ads. I don't mind sitting through a ten second ad on YouTube to support content creators. What I do mind is being infected with malware.
It's the Daily Mail so it could be argued that the ransomware was an improvement.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;48908196]Yeah, honestly. I can handle ads. I don't mind sitting through a ten second ad on YouTube to support content creators. What I do mind is being infected with malware.[/QUOTE]
I think that a consumer-negotiated industry standard would really help bridge the gap between advertisers and viewers. I'm sure groups like Google or the IETF could develop something satisfactory if they committed their resources towards it.
For typical websites, the standards would be something vaguely like the following:
[B]1.)[/B] Advertisements must restrict themselves to the margins of the webpage. This would exclude pop-ups, floating ads, and the like.
[B]2.)[/B] Trick advertisements, like fake download buttons or redirect ads, would be entirely forbidden. (This would include those fucking aggravating ads that open the App Store on iOS and display some shitty half-baked app. I'm looking at you, DraftKings. Fucking arrogant assholes.)
[B]3.)[/B] Video or audio advertisements must not autoplay their contents without being [I]directly[/I] activated by a click or tap by the user. (Unintentionally passing your cursor over a video advertisement and getting some enthusiastic voiceover about boner pills is, to say the least, irritating.)
[B]4.)[/B] A single advertisement must be below a certain threshold in size, such as one megabyte or lower. Alternatively, a data ratio of advertisements versus the content requested could be enforced, such as one megabyte of advertising for every three megabytes of requested content. (I'm just throwing out vague numbers, not really sure how big a typical webpage is nowadays.)
[B]5.)[/B] For advertisements loaded through a central video player like YouTube or Twitch, the volume must be set quite low by default. In addition, the advertisements provided must not exceed the video requested by a certain length, so you wouldn't have to sit through a thirty-second advertisement for a YouTube video that's two minutes long. Not sure how a livestream would be handled, though.
[B]6.)[/B] Of course, all advertisements must be free of malware. It's bullshit that this even bears mentioning, but this is the world in which we live.
Again, these are just things I've considered. I'm not a professional by any means, but these standards seem fairly reasonable from my perspective. I know it seems to be an unpopular sentiment, but I actually like the whitelist feature included in Adblock Plus - if uBlock included it as an opt-in feature, I would enable it.
Daily Mail's website is as bad as the content.
The pages are cluttered with seemingly infinite links to other articles on both the Daily Mail and other clickbait sites, social widgets, auto-playing videos and adverts. Even AdBlock can't make it bearable.
just an fyi its not malware in the ad its what the ad links to, while bad you wouldn't get infected if you didn't use ublock/adblock
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.