Google prepares publishers for the release of Chrome ad-blocking

Steve Kinney admin at
Sat Apr 21 01:36:22 PDT 2018

On 04/20/2018 06:40 PM, Joseph Frazier wrote:
>     > Personally, I
>     > consider ad-blocking a form of theft, 
>             priceless. You might have not noticed but people are supposed
>             to own their computers. So the actual theft is done by the ad
>             publishers who are criminally accessing hardware they do not
>             own. That's especially blatant in the case of the tons of
>             javashit tracking malware they run on the computers of their
>             victims.
> Sure, it's their computer, but they chose to visit a site which is not
> theirs, One that was created and maintained by somebody else. It costs
> to create and host sites, if there is no means for monetization then the
> likely macro repercussion is less sites or more pay-sites. Perhaps
> someday on some sites you may choose:  1. micro-crypto payments. 2. give
> me ads. 3. allow my browser to mini-mine crypto for the site owner. 4.
> by donation ie wikipedia.... There is no free lunch, the attitude that
> people should get something for nothing in my opinion is a cancer to
> society.

This argument strikes me as a steaming pile of shit, metaphorically
speaking, because the world it depicts presents as a world of pure
imagination.  In the material world, ad blocking is available to a
minority among technology literate people (already a minority) who
choose to take control of their presence on the networks.  These same
people most often have very high sales resistance, and the ability to
"search the world over" for whatever products or deals they require.  I
can not imagine how an evidence supported model would show significant
revenue losses to advertisers, due to the use of ad blocking tools.

Maybe some of the most abusive scum in the industry would have a legit
gripe about losing money, because "nice netizens" don't go in the
neighborhoods where they operate, and "bastard operators" who do go
there don't tolerate saturation ad bombing.  An atypical niche market,
hard to defend while maintaining a gleaming facade of Moral Purity.

Failure to block unsolicited executable code inbound from third party
websites presents as a fundamental network security failure:  A
thoroughly unnecessary exposure "inside the firewall", to executable
code and arbitrary data files from a class of historically hostile
actors.  People who fail at basic digital hygiene keep botnets and other
major criminal activities on the networks alive and growing.  Do you
want a Digital Pearl Harbor?  Because that's how you get a Digital Pearl

Failure to use basic network security measures like ad and script
control tools - and worse, calling their users "thieves" - presents as
gross social irresponsibility:  Go ahead and heroically sacrifice your
privacy, identity and worldly goods at the altar of your Corporate
overlords:  But please stop trying to expose the rest of us to DDOS
attacks and other Nasty Business via the rooted, botnet infested
computers of people who swallow that sad little Morality Play about how
the Bad Evil Blockers ruin the Internet for everyone.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list