Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arequire" data-source="post: 976427" data-attributes="member: 59283">Sure. I understand that. And I do see how publishers could argue that their lack of control releases them from responsibility. I mean, ultimately it was the ad network responsible for serving the ad(s) that failed to adequately screen their inventory. With that said, both parties likely profited from the ad being served (the ad network getting paid to serve the ad, and the publisher from either the impressions or, if the ad was pay-per-click, the visitors who clicked the ad), and for both to refuse to acknowledge their role in facilitating the delivery of malware, while offering nothing in the way of compensation to users who&#039;ve potentially had their financial security decimated, just seems disgraceful to me.A problem with the piracy analogy is that by pirating a movie, you are directly violating legally binding property rights placed on that movie. It&#039;s a clear breach of the law.Publishers don&#039;t have the same legal standing. No one signed a contract with them agreeing to view ads in exchange for accessing the content on their website. And while publishers argue that there&#039;s an unwritten agreement between them and visitors to their site, and that viewing ads is the price users must pay for accessing their content, their argument collapses when you think about the fact that their unwritten agreement would also have to extend to the myriad of—mostly invisible—third parties present on most websites nowadays.I&#039;m super curious about this too. I&#039;ve tried researching it in the past but all I got was &#039;malvertising on the increase&#039; without any actual prevalence data. Which sucks because my usage of an ad blocker is primarily based on the potentially paranoid view that by not using an ad blocker I&#039;m increasing the likelihood of my device getting infected exponentially.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arequire, post: 976427, member: 59283"] Sure. I understand that. And I do see how publishers could argue that their lack of control releases them from responsibility. I mean, ultimately it was the ad network responsible for serving the ad(s) that failed to adequately screen their inventory. With that said, both parties likely profited from the ad being served (the ad network getting paid to serve the ad, and the publisher from either the impressions or, if the ad was pay-per-click, the visitors who clicked the ad), and for both to refuse to acknowledge their role in facilitating the delivery of malware, while offering nothing in the way of compensation to users who've potentially had their financial security decimated, just seems disgraceful to me. A problem with the piracy analogy is that by pirating a movie, you are directly violating legally binding property rights placed on that movie. It's a clear breach of the law. Publishers don't have the same legal standing. No one signed a contract with them agreeing to view ads in exchange for accessing the content on their website. And while publishers argue that there's an unwritten agreement between them and visitors to their site, and that viewing ads is the price users must pay for accessing their content, their argument collapses when you think about the fact that their unwritten agreement would also have to extend to the myriad of—mostly invisible—third parties present on most websites nowadays. I'm super curious about this too. I've tried researching it in the past but all I got was 'malvertising on the increase' without any actual prevalence data. Which sucks because my usage of an ad blocker is primarily based on the potentially paranoid view that by not using an ad blocker I'm increasing the likelihood of my device getting infected exponentially. [/QUOTE]

Verification