6 ms·
Mac users served info-stealer malware through Google ads
- robnado 2y agoI've had phishing served to me through google ads a few times, so this hardly surprises.
- shiroiushi 2y agoInterestingly, there's a bunch of HNers who chide us and tell us we all have a moral responsibility to allow malware to be installed on our systems, because using an ad-blocker is "stealing".
- thfuran 2y agoNo, you have the moral responsibility to not steal and no inalienable right to consume all media you can get your hands on.
- m1n7 2y ago"you wouldn't download a car" heck yes i would
- m1n7 2y agoare you implying that consuming media whilst blocking ads is stealing or do i just not get the sarcasm here. genuinely can't tell. you're right about the second part i guess. not everything is intended for a public audience (like some cringe video clip with friends from a few years ago). with everything else (cinema, music etc.) i'd argue that my need for entertainment is more important than making sure some billionaires make 20 bucks on my purchase, especially if i can't afford it. personally, i pirate everything and pay for stuff made by independent creators (foss devs, indie artists etc.) that i really like. perfectly moral
- titusjohnson 2y agoAdblocking does not constitute "theft" under even the most strained comparison. Just because the post office keeps putting trash in my mailbox doesn't mean it's theft for me to only keep the letters I care about. Throwing ads/spam/trash into the bin instead of keeping it in my house is not theft.
- thfuran 2y ago>Adblocking does not constitute "theft" under even the most strained comparison. As long as you accept that things like walking into a restaurant bathroom and taking a roll or two of toilet paper or going to a bank to take one of the pens don't constitute theft under even the most strained comparison. Using an ad-supported site with an adblocker is imposing costs on a service provider by abusing a service provided under certain assumptions that you're knowingly and deliberately violating.
- Kingince 2y agoAnd when an ad on one of these ad-supported site infects my device with malware, putting my financial security and, potentially, my livelihood at risk, is said website going to reimburse me for any resulting losses?
- thfuran 2y agoNot if you don't sue them for damages.
- GreenVulpine 2y agoThe mental gymnastics to make ad blocking seem immoral are insane.
- Whoove 2y agoStrange, I don't recall signing a contract stating that I'm obligated to help the websites I visit derive revenue from said visits.
- angoragoats 2y ago
- GreenVulpine 2y agoNot exactly HNers. Most likely bots or at the very least paid shills.
- freedomben 2y agoWhy is Apple allowing Google to serve ads to Apple's customers?
- superb_dev 2y agoYou’re asking why apple doesn’t ship an adblocker in their browser?
- shiroiushi 2y agoI don't know if that's what the OP meant with that question, but I do think this is a valid question: why don't they? It would certainly improve the user experience.
- fxtentacle 2y agoI think the answer is somewhere upwards of $20 billion a year. https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147007/google-paid-apple-20-billion-in-2022-to-be-safaris-default-search-engine https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/2/24147007/google-paid-apple...
- add-sub-mul-div 2y agoBecause Apple sells its customers' traffic to Google for billions of dollars each year.
- tjpnz 2y agoNever forget that Google is all but complicit in this.
- angoragoats 2y agoAnd Apple, who likely would have shipped at least a basic ad blocker on its platforms by now, were it not for the tens of billions of dollars per year that Google pays them.