Hopefully, at some point, Google and other giant companies will start cracking down on fake download buttons and other malicious ads.
Google can't do anything about it; they cannot dictate what can or cannot be on someone else's site. This isn't "malicious logic" (actual malware) I'm referring to here; I'm referring to the owner's site deliberately set up by the owner to lead you to clicking on advertisements/other downloads than what the user clearly intended.
True story: I've used CCleaner for about a decade. I've downloaded it hundreds of times (it goes on every PC I touch, which is a lot of them). Just tuning up a client's PC one day for the first time, I go to Piriform's site to download CCleaner but this time, I did it before I installed any adblockers.
My download was finished and right when I was about to click on it, I noticed it wasn't CCleaner. I had to retrace my steps to figure out how the heck I got some alien file in lieu of CCleaner. Misdirection is how.
My point is that this is an attack vector (in addition to malvertising, which is every bit of a 0-day issue--if not more--than any other malware) that you are choosing to keep as a vulnerability, as avast!, Google, etc., or good browsing habits/vigilance (human factor) can never provide 100% security.
That's like refusing to install a door/lock in your front door frame on the assumption that nobody with ulterior motives will ever walk through it or if they did, you'd have foreknowledge of this and someone else would have managed to prevent their entry.
You put the "annoyance" at a higher level.
I do. I don't know anyone who enjoys being annoyed, do you? It's kinda part of the definition of the word.
It seems almost non-existant to me.
That is you and I have no choice but to take you at your word about what does and does not irritate you.
Likewise, you have no choice but to do the same.
However, my point is about security, not personal preferences.
if you block ads, you are losing patience, and the real world is a lot worse than minor annoyances.
Cute red herring you got there.
I block ads primarily to not be annoyed. Are you really going to try to convince me that doing an easy thing to avert continual annoyance is a bad idea?
Security is a secondary reason and, for me, a side-effect. My suggestion for your consideration is that if you do not consider ads a nuisance (a concept completely bizarre to me but that's me, not everyone else, obviously), then you should consider them a security threat.
Hence, we have here a good, practical illustration of absolute (objective) truth and relative (subjective) truth and when each apply:
Absolute truth: malvertising has infected many; there is no 100% defense against it
Absolute truth: webmasters use misdirection to trick users
Not an absolute truth: ads (object) are annoying (subjective)
Relative truth: I (subject) am annoyed by ads (object)
Relative truth: You (subject) are not annoyed by ads (object)
You think the acceptable ads project is dumb? I'm interested to see if this project will turn into a sellout like the rest.
I do not think the acceptable ads project is dumb; I think it (along with Apple) send a loud message about the unscrupulousness of advertisers and the problems it causes (like security) for everyone and the problems it causes for them (those who have no problem throwing that baby out with the bathwater).
Personally, the only influence an ad (or any aggressive marketing/salesmanship) has on me ranges anywhere between "run away/avoid" to "be extra thorough with due diligence; go spelunking for a reason to avoid". I have neither bought nor recommended anything because of an ad, ever.
