Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Browsers
Web Extensions
Google’s Manifest V3 Still Hurts Privacy, Security, and Innovation
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arequire" data-source="post: 976474" data-attributes="member: 59283"><p>I agree that something doesn't have to be illegal to be morally objectional, but like you said morality is personal; it's subjective, which is the problem with using it as the basis of any argument.</p><p>If you look at this <a href="https://malwaretips.com/threads/arequires-security-configuration.68340/#post-597378" target="_blank">post I made back in 2017</a>, you'll see that, at the time, I chose to use Privacy Badger because it automatically unblocked ad networks that honoured Do Not Track, and that I felt uncomfortable blocking networks that did the right thing. I also said that I believe publishers deserve compensation for their work, and I still hold these views today but in a significantly diminished state, because the publishers were never really the problem, the advertising industry was, and in the 5 years since I made that post, that same multibillion dollar industry has done little to nothing to address the problems I outlined in that post. So while I do still feel bad about depriving publishers of compensation, that bad feeling is mostly gone when I think about how the industry propping up those publishers continues to exploit and facilitate genuine harm towards consumers, and then rages at them when they choose to engage in the only defence they have against it: Blocking ads.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would too but who decides what a middle ground looks like? Eyeo (Adblock Plus's developer) claims its Acceptable Ads program is the ideal middle ground; allowing ads to be delivered and publishers to profit off them, but forcing them to adhere to strict placement and sizing guidelines, and <a href="https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#love" target="_blank">according to Eyeo the majority of their userbase agrees.</a> But once again subjectivity raises its head, because ads being annoying is the least of my (and probably a lot of other people) problems with them. The ads under the AAs program still engage in data collection, and they still act as a vector for malware delivery.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately I believe the entire industry needs reforming, but it's not going to do so voluntarily and lawmakers have proven they're only willing to impose meager adjustments on it. So what we have is what we're stuck with, and publishers will sadly continue to be caught in the crossfire.</p><p></p><p>(Man, imagine being able to engage in political discussion like this, instead of all sides just screaming obscenities at each other ad-infinitum. Sigh.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arequire, post: 976474, member: 59283"] I agree that something doesn't have to be illegal to be morally objectional, but like you said morality is personal; it's subjective, which is the problem with using it as the basis of any argument. If you look at this [URL='https://malwaretips.com/threads/arequires-security-configuration.68340/#post-597378']post I made back in 2017[/URL], you'll see that, at the time, I chose to use Privacy Badger because it automatically unblocked ad networks that honoured Do Not Track, and that I felt uncomfortable blocking networks that did the right thing. I also said that I believe publishers deserve compensation for their work, and I still hold these views today but in a significantly diminished state, because the publishers were never really the problem, the advertising industry was, and in the 5 years since I made that post, that same multibillion dollar industry has done little to nothing to address the problems I outlined in that post. So while I do still feel bad about depriving publishers of compensation, that bad feeling is mostly gone when I think about how the industry propping up those publishers continues to exploit and facilitate genuine harm towards consumers, and then rages at them when they choose to engage in the only defence they have against it: Blocking ads. I would too but who decides what a middle ground looks like? Eyeo (Adblock Plus's developer) claims its Acceptable Ads program is the ideal middle ground; allowing ads to be delivered and publishers to profit off them, but forcing them to adhere to strict placement and sizing guidelines, and [URL='https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#love']according to Eyeo the majority of their userbase agrees.[/URL] But once again subjectivity raises its head, because ads being annoying is the least of my (and probably a lot of other people) problems with them. The ads under the AAs program still engage in data collection, and they still act as a vector for malware delivery. Ultimately I believe the entire industry needs reforming, but it's not going to do so voluntarily and lawmakers have proven they're only willing to impose meager adjustments on it. So what we have is what we're stuck with, and publishers will sadly continue to be caught in the crossfire. (Man, imagine being able to engage in political discussion like this, instead of all sides just screaming obscenities at each other ad-infinitum. Sigh.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
