While consuming the content, you’re avoiding paying some content its price, because you protest how the content guards its commercial interests. Thus, ahoy!

  • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    3 days ago

    if you’re arguing this, it’s probably already vanishingly rare for you to be clicking on ads or looking anything more than a glance at them. and on my work device, where i didn’t install adblockers as an experiment, i don’t recall ever seeing ads that ship malware, and i commit quite a bit of tomfoolwery on my work device.

    if by malware you mean how viewing ads slows down your machine, that what people say of Denuvo.

    (not sure what you meant by the jehovah’s witnesses part. are they actually starving?)

    • one_old_coder@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      3 days ago

      i don’t recall ever seeing ads that ship malware

      It’s a very good business and it exists.

      that what people say of Denuvo.

      It’s good, because Denuvo and every DRM framework is malware too.

      (not sure what you meant by the jehovah’s witnesses part. are they actually starving?)

      Since when is starving a requirement to accept harassment from every company out there? On my own computer nonetheless. It’s basic protection. I don’t install viruses because you ask for it.

      • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        3 days ago

        i’m not asking you to accept harassment, i’m not saying piracy is bad. i’m just saying that ad-blocking is one form of piracy, just like how people pirate to reject DRM. and it surprises me that so many people insist it’s not.

        i don’t understand why i would host a solicitor or how that is comparable to ads. when you see a solicitor you don’t pay them bread and jam, their company does. when you see an ad you don’t pay the website money, the ad company does.

        • one_old_coder@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          3 days ago

          Ads is a form of psychological harassment for many reasons.

          when you see a solicitor you don’t pay them bread and jam, their company does

          Cult members are often not paid by their cults. You should give them your money then.

          • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            3 days ago

            so is DRM.

            money isn’t what cult members want when they volunteer to evangelize. that’s different from webmasters and ads.

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 days ago

      don’t recall ever seeing ads that ship malware

      How old are you?

      i commit quite a bit of tomfoolwery on my work device

      That might be because your work device is protected by policies and applications installed by syssec team.

      • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 days ago

        Imagine them getting teleported back to the days of Limewire’s mp3.exes, pop-up ads, pop-under ads, audio ads, moving ads, activex bullshit, drive-by malware not even needing interaction, and…

        BonziBuddy too, can’t forget that. It’s so cute, it can’t be malicious! I’m going to install it on all my office computers, what’s the harm?

        • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          curiously, the only time i’ve ever gotten infected (besides wannacry) was through a torrent

    • BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      You don’t have to click an ad for it to be a security threat.

      It is possible to abuse the mechanics of a web browser to send a fullscreen ad that resists typical means of app closing, scaring a normal user into clicking to install something malicious.

      The weakest link is always the user, and advertisements are literally meant to target users. Exactly how hard do you think it is for an ad network to target the kinds of people most likely to get scared and just click the [Fix] button that downloads the malware?

      Your average user gets infected and they take a computer to a repair shop to get it fixed, which costs money.

      If the ad network would accept liability for damages caused by malware ads their ad networks delivered to people, I could be more sympathetic to the position that blocking ads is unfair to the content creaters paid by ad views. But if I’m financially responsible for fixing damage caused by ads, then I reserve the right to block them.

      Full stop.

      • OwOarchist@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        A lot of ads are given permission to run unvetted, arbitrary code in your browser.

        Every modern browser is supposed to sandbox that shit, but all they need is one security exploit to escape that sandbox and potentially be executing arbitrary code on your computer with full access to all of your files.

        Some malicious ads can potentially infect/hijack your computer without you clicking on them at all.

      • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        these are as rare as non-tracking ads, and my approaches of<1. i don’t use my web browser much on mobile (that distance probably fries my eyes anyways) 2. i use µBO and whitelist sites on my normal computer>probably help me avoid that anyways

        • BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          These are rare ads for you, because you’re not in the target demographic that they get shown to.

          Everyone’s online experience can be totally different based on what group an algorithm puts you in.

    • inimzi@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think you got the piracy part backwards. The ad companies are the thieves. Their ads ship with trackers that steal the consumer private information. It’s an invasion on privacy and it’s a security threat. I blog and don’t implement any ads to protect my readers