10 ms·
Ad blocking has become a safety issue. My parents are at an age where they fall for things. If a malicious ad pops up and offers to install McAfee, some other
by beloch 16d ago
Ad blocking has become a safety issue. My parents are at an age where they fall for things. If a malicious ad pops up and offers to install McAfee, some other form of crapware, or outright scamware, they'll click that ad and install the thing. Then I'll get called over when the computer starts acting screwy. If Google, MS, etc. had ever gotten together and developed a way to filter malicious ads out of their own ad services, maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. They didn't do that and probably never will.
If my parents get a new machine, the first thing I do is uninstall or, at least, delete the icons for Edge, Chrome, etc.. On goes Firefox, uBlock Origin, and a couple other extensions. They don't care what browser they use. They can't even name it. I just try to make sure they use a browser that isn't horribly unsafe.
We should all do this for people we care about. Don't ask them what browser they prefer. Odds are they don't know or care. Don't try to convince them to install Firefox themselves. They won't. Just do it for them. Think of it like picking up a rusty nail that's on their lawn. Sooner or later they're going to step on that thing if you don't.
- account42 15d ago> They didn't do that and probably never will. They would if they were held liable for the damages caused by the ads they server, which they should be.
- cwnyth 16d agoThe better thing would be to hold Google directly accountable for every malicious ad they allow through their network. If they cannot do that, they should not be in business selling ads then. Yes, that means amending the law (in the US). But the law as it is written facilitates crime.
- siliconc0w 16d agoAgreed It's not just malicious software ads, they also sell ads to entities mitming every government service.
- bborud 16d agoHow would one hold Google accountable? By fining them $1bn? $10bn? $100bn? To them it is just the cost of doing business. We're beyond holding huge companies accountable. The only way they could be held accountable is if there was personal risk involved for the CEOs. There isn't.
- account42 14d agoDoesn't matter what fine you start with as long as you keep increasing it geometrically with repeated infractions.
- bborud 11d agoFor those who downvoted that comment: grow some nuts and prove me wrong.
- mschuster91 16d ago> How would one hold Google accountable? By fining them $1bn? $10bn? $100bn? To them it is just the cost of doing business. Percentage of global gross revenue like the EU's GDPR does seems to work effectively enough for a scare tactic.
- dylan604 16d agoAt this point, breaking them up into smaller companies. Then start fining the individual companies so the balance sheets feel the fine more. Increase the fines exponentially for each violation.
- electriclove 16d agoI mean, maybe we can try going after the scammers.. but we can’t even stop scam callers and junk mail
- account42 14d agoWho is we? Some countries do fairly well with both of these.
- electriclove 14d agoThe US
- mikestew 16d agoYou can stop junk mail for $8: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47619939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47619939 Sorry, no solution for spam calls/texts.
- what 16d agoSadly does not apply to political organizations, which is probably the largest source of spam “mail” (to mention nothing of text/sms spam). The amount of crap stuffed into my mailbox every election season is insane.
- koito17 16d agoIn Japan, the identity verification is quite strict to subscribe to a voice/text capable phone line. Still yet to get robocalls or spam texts. I'm sure they exist, but despite handing out my phone number to city hall and countless private businesses, I have yet to receive one. On the other hand, enabling my Verizon eSIM is a surefire way to receive hourly "Potential Spam" calls, despite giving nobody outside of direct family my US phone number. Thankfully, I've convinced enough of my family to use Signal and we call/text through there instead. Nowadays, I only turn on the Verizon line if I have to receive an SMS one-time code or call my broker. Don't think the U.S. will ever solve this problem; people will just say something about privacy, the country's "too big" to combat spam at scale, etc. It's also too easy to get a phone number anonymously. A frequent phenomenon I've witnessed is that when someone blocks a phone number, the same caller contacts them again from a different number with the same area code.
- cute_boi 16d agoIdk if apple can validate each and every apps before publishing to appstore, why can't google and facebook validate each and every ads?
- sroussey 16d agoBut they don’t. Google and others do vet ads, but when they don’t host them, the ads can change based on who is looking (clean ads for Google! Not for you!). Google didn’t have this issue until they bought DoubleClick (text ads and they hosted). And they had pretty good privacy as they didn’t want to share shit. After DC it all went to hell.
- cwnyth 16d ago> But they don’t. Google and others do vet ads, but when they don’t host them, the ads can change based on who is looking (clean ads for Google! Not for you!). That sounds like a problem that Google should have already solved. Maybe that's why "Don't Be Evil" got the boot.
- anticensor 16d ago> the ads can change based on who is looking (clean ads for Google! Not for you!). How is that even allowed?
- heavenlyblue 15d agoSo they are not hosting the ads? But either way, stuff like hashing content (and only whitelisting hashes which are approved) should solve that.
- mcmcmc 16d agoCause that would cut into their profit margins, and section 230 absolves them of liability
- xp84 16d agoDefine "validate". App Review is really only good at catching things that make Apple uncomfortable for financial reasons, or make their attorneys worried (trademarks, copyright, etc.) The sandboxing is what makes the App Store pretty unsuitable for distributing actual malware (the kind that can do stuff to your device without you knowing).
- envy2 16d agoThis. There should be no intermediary liability protections for any paid or monetised content: as soon as a platform is either charging for placement or paying the creator, they should be treated as a publisher and held responsible.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 16d agoNot just the networks (although preferably also the networks) but also the publishers. If a newspaper took money to advertise blatant, obvious scams, I assume a judge would consider them at least partially responsible for restitution, if not an accessory to the crime. Looking away really hard (and delegating the task of looking away really hard) shouldn't get you out of this. Hold the publisher responsible, they can then hold the platform responsible, thus creating a market for platforms that actually fight scams. Right now, there is limited incentive to fight scams, as the scams still drive revenue. If you take money for it, you should be responsible for it.
- BLKNSLVR 16d agoGiven the colour of the text, I just wanted to say that I agree 100% with this: > If you take money for it, you should be responsible for it. If they don't want to take responsibility then they should guarantee that the responsible party have provided valid credentials that can result in their being held responsible. That would clear up the quagmire that is internet advertising pretty darn quick.
- abustamam 16d agoI am working on a hobby project to help me manage my Toastmasters clubs and Id love to get it into more hands because its genuinely helpful but more hands means more maintenance and opération costs. I asked Claude if I could charge for it and it basically said that as long as its a hobby project Im safe but once I start charging, then the Toastmasters organization could sue me or issue a cease and desist for using their IP to make money without permission, which makes sense. It did advise me to talk to a lawyer which I haven't done, but assuming it's right, then financial incentives causing other parties "harm" (for some definition of the word) are illegal. In other words, I think the law wants what you and OP said to be true, but seems like it doesn't apply once you get big enough. Anecdotally, Amazon and Walmart and other big retailers seem to not be held responsible when they sell goods that dont work as advertised or even actively harm people.
- robhlt 16d agoThis kind of thing has come up before with "murder for hire" advertisements [1]. The publishers were only found liable when the advertisement was very explicit. Seems like the bar is quite high and courts are currently unwilling to impose "undue burden" on publishers. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_of_Fortune_(magazine)#%22Gun_for_Hire%22_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_of_Fortune_(magazine)#...
- panarky 16d agoGeneralize this. Every landlord should be directly accountable for all crimes committed by their tenants. Every telco should be directly accountable for all crimes committed by their customers. Meta should pay damages when their users stalk and harass people.
- dpkirchner 16d agoTry generalizing the argument without changing it substantially, then we'll talk.
- shortstuffsushi 16d agoThere are levels to this though. You wouldn't hold a landlord accountable if it was a surprise that a crime took place, but if they were aware that some of their tenants were committing crimes and just "choosing not to ask about it," they could reasonably be called "accountable." Telcos are regularly asked to give up information regarding crimes committed by their customers, see the Patriot Act for details - in some sense, we as a country have decided to hold them accountable for this (though, not spam). Meta have been involved in a whole list of litigation that is at minimum adjacent to stalking/harassment, if not directly involving those things. I would need to look up to be more specific, though.
- panarky 15d agoYou moved the goalposts to make your arguments. You say landlords should only have accountability for the crimes of their tenants if they chose to do nothing to prevent their property from being used for crime. Google doesn't just ignore bad advertisers, they prevent the vast majority of malicious ads and report the worst offenders to law enforcement. Google is already doing far more than what you say immunizes landlords. You say telcos are in the clear because they give info to law enforcement on demand. Google also does this, so according to your goalposts, Google is also in the clear. You say Meta is in the clear because they have been sued for crimes their platform enabled. Google has also been sued and paid billions in damages. The standard I'm asking you to generalize is the one I replied to: "hold Google directly accountable for every malicious ad they allow through their network". If this standard can't generalize to landlords, telcos, Meta and everyone else who has a platform that bad actors abuse, then it's a bogus standard.
- m463 16d agoall of this seems a little like second-level nonsense. it's like ... "when my vacuum cleaner takes pictures of my wife naked, it should use HTTPS when uploading the pictures to the cloud"
- jagged-chisel 16d agoBut … it really should
- 1718627440 16d agoThen you can't intercept it and server a virus instead.
- beloch 16d agoThis is bad enough for Americans, but things are a bit worse for those who aren't. If my government tries to regulate, tax, or otherwise annoy one of these corporations, their billionaire owner will deposit a few million into the right campaign fund and the Big Cheeto will tariff us, threaten to invade us, swear at us, send us ambassadors who swear at us, or start trying to rename bodies of water. (He'll probably do that anyways.) In general, it's bad enough for our business that we usually just let these companies do what they want and hope that, someday, the U.S. will regulate them properly. That's unlikely to happen anytime soon. (Note: Even Democrats get nasty when their campaign funding is threatened.) In the meantime, look out for the people you care about and support anything that pries your data out of American fingers.
- vjvjvjvjghv 16d agoHow do you figure out what is a malicious ad? That seems really difficult at scale.
- account42 14d agoOh well, it they're doing it at scale then I guess we'll let the crime slide.
- wredcoll 16d agoIf you're asking socially, you don't, that's the benefit of writing laws instead of programs. If you're asking technically, well, google made over 400 billion dollars last year, they can spend some of that to figure it out. Or stop serving ads. Just because it's difficult to do safely doesn't mean you get to just do it anyways because there's profit involved.
- avereveard 16d agoYou start with the obvious cases of sending you to a domain that serves malware, sure there will be instance of fraud that will slip trough, but lets not let best be the enemy of good
- Symbiote 16d ago"At scale" sounds like an assumption that costs must decrease as income increases. That's not required. Google could employ proportionality as many people reviewing what they advertise as, say, National Geographic Magazine.
- enoint 16d agoRight. They don’t need to get caught at scale.
- breakingcups 16d agoDo the words "at scale" magically remove all responsibility and reliability?
- 15d ago
- wtallis 16d agoAd blocking has always been a safety issue.
- noisy_boy 16d agoRaspberry pi + adguard + tailscale could be a good solution for you. Browser agnostic, you get an admin dashboard to manage the white/blacklists, see logs of the attempts and other goodies. Bonus, this combination works on mobile too. The only nit I have is that after restarting the phone, tailscale may not auto-start.
- dylan604 16d agoYou could also set it up to be administered remotely so that you don't have to make that in person visit.
- CobrastanJorji 16d agoTangentially related, but has anyone else noticed a big increase in fraud attempts over the last year or two? I hardly remember any a while back, but I've gotten probably a dozen calls this year that go "hey this is AmEx please confirm your credit card number" or some such.
- nickff 16d agoPhone call scams seem to ebb and flow depending on which 'sucker lists' you're on. Online scams appear to be persistently on the rise, both against consumers and organizations (businesses, non-profits, and governments). I suspect that LLM-AI will be a boon for scammers of all sorts, but particularly for phone and video-call scammers.
- beloch 16d agoEvery now and then I hear advice to the effect that saying even a single word to a robocaller will get your number flagged for more, so you should just answer silently and hang-up. Whenever I follow that advice, I get more and more calls. Then I start engaging with callers to waste their time and resources. I press numbers, try to get to speak to a human, and then generally mess with them if I do get a human. That usually takes care of the calls for a while.
- pocksuppet 16d agoMy credit card number is 1234 5678 abcd efgh. What do you mean it has to be numbers? I can read it right here, it says abcd efgh.
- saghm 16d agoMine is actually all letters, it's G U L L I B L E. If you're having trouble remembering, I heard it's written on your ceiling right above you.
- AlotOfReading 16d agoIt's partially a product of the widespread availability of LLMs. Criminal organizations that would previously have been limited by the language fluency, scale, or technical competence of the labor available to them can now use LLMs to supplement their operations. It's also helping them target new populations that you're more likely to be in alongside traditional victims like the elderly, the desperate, previous victims, etc. They're pretty slow to adopt new technologies, so scam usage is still ramping up.
- yakz 16d agoA problem is that the platform owners argue that this kind of stuff is why they need to put up a security gate that prevents you from installing whatever you want on your own device while also allowing you to install the malware from the ads (... maybe because they want to control what you can install more than they care about the malware?)
- deleted 16d ago[deleted]
- Eueudhsbsj32 16d ago> On goes Firefox, uBlock Origin, and a couple other extensions. They don't care what browser they use. I did the same with my mom, but then her broker and doctor's websites started complaining that they will only run on a supported browser, i.e., Chrome. I've gotten her to still use Firefox for most other things, but it's not easy.
- zhivota 16d agoYou can try Brave, it's Chromium under the hood so it's usually accepted and has built in ad blocking, and a one click way to turn it off for a specific site if you have an issue.
- TylerE 16d ago[flagged]
- magackame 16d agoDid you try spoofing the User-Agent?
- beloch 16d agoA user-agent spoofer like Chrome Mask is helpful here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask/ It's off by default and has to be turned on per site, but will automatically stay on for subsequent visits. Test the site with it to be sure it works for your mom. Most sites that insist on enforcing Chrome-only user-agents run just fine on Firefox. I've encountered a few that run even better on Firefox than they do on Chrome.
- pocksuppet 16d agoEvidently whenever money and safety are opposed, money wins every time. Ad blocking is existential for Google. If everyone blocks ads, Google stops existing. They will do everything they can to prevent it, without going so far they stop existing for regulatory reasons either.
- deleted 16d ago[deleted]
- WarmWash 16d agoIt's not just Google, the Internet stops existing. I know people have rosy eyes for a BBS/IRC comeback, but that will never happen. By and large, people don't care about having to look at tide and Toyota ads to watch YouTube.
- _carbyau_ 16d ago> It's not just Google, the Internet stops existing. Uh? No? The internet existed before being overrun by corporate presence. It still does. Advertising pays a lot, but take the ad money away and let it scale accordingly.
- WarmWash 16d agoThe worst thing about the modern internet is people's innate expectation that others will work/pay to entertain or inform them for free. What existed in 1993 was a cultural blip, it's never coming back, so let it go.
- account42 14d agoAds are a cultural blip that will disappear too. Let it go.
- _carbyau_ 16d ago> What existed in 1993 was a cultural blip, it's never coming back, so let it go. Ha! I am under no illusion it is coming back. But even though it flows like the unstoppable tides, ad money is not a requirement.
- deleted 16d ago[deleted]
- hackernud3s 16d ago> My parents are at an age where they fall for things. If they're falling for things that they didn't used to fall for, that's sounds more like dementia than age.
- fn-mote 16d agoThere’s a long way between perfectly functioning and dementia. I want to say that I hope you never find out, but the twilight of life is tough either way.
- jolmg 16d ago"Being at an age" can include having age-related illnesses.
- hackernud3s 16d agoRight but an age-related illness that affects cognition is generally just called dementia.
- beloch 16d agoNormal cognitive decline comes gradually with age to most people. Dementia is more severe, often more sudden, and can be caused by a host of things, from Alzheimer's to brain injury. Regardless, you're not going to take away somebody's computer because their brain isn't quite as sharp as it once was.
- hn_acc1 16d agoOr maybe there are more things using the same tactics / scammer's reach keeps increasing. My parents "fell" for fundamentalism early (as kids - raised in it), for televangelists in their 40s, and Fox News in their 70s/80s. Fox News so recently only because they didn't get it very often until about 10 years ago when they moved into a retirement home (didn't have cable before that).
- hackernud3s 16d ago
- sergebakharev 16d ago> They don't care what browser they use. They can't even name it. You could even extend that to OS as well.
- sneak 16d ago> If a malicious ad pops up and offers to install McAfee, some other form of crapware, or outright scamware, they'll click that ad and install the thing. This has been solved on iOS. It’s not an ads problem.
- krackers 16d agoHow? Can't apps link you to the app store where you have to make an in app purchase?
- dylan604 16d ago> the first thing I do is uninstall or, at least, delete the icons for Edge, Chrome, etc. Does this run the risk of reverting with OS updates? History is full of OS vendors resetting defaults, whether that was maliciously intentional or inadvertently doesn't matter. If you set up Firefox as default browser yet the OS resets to using Edge, would your parents even notice?
- saghm 16d agoMy favorite story of just how little people who aren't as tech savvy don't differentiate between different parts of the browser UI (which naturally leads to clicking things that are best left unclicked) is when my grandmother told me her "internet was broken" and asked me to fix it. I was mentally preparing for a call to Verizon or something, but no, when she finally showed me, it turned out that one of the bookmarks on her toolbar in Safari had gone missing (presumably she accidentally deleted it). After I added it back and she clicked it to see that it opened properly, she was satisfied that I had fixed the internet. To her, when she opened Safari, it was all just "the internet"; she didn't differentiate between the local browser UI and the web, let alone different elements on a single webpage being from different sources.
- jxramos 16d agoLow resolution conflation of things is a very understandable outcome. It’s a lot of vocabulary to absorb to speak precisely about UI in general. I’m glad your grandmother has someone like you in her life.
- saghm 15d agoNot at all evident from the story I told, but she had a stroke a few years ago and then only survived another year after that. She lived a long and from what I could tell happy and fulfilled life though, and to the end seemed far more concerned about how others were doing than herself (during my last conversation with her, the first thing she wanted to know about was how my then-girlfriend-now-wife was doing because she had developed an autoimmune issue out of nowhere around the time that they had met a few months prior). On the whole, she was actually pretty admirable in how gracefully she aged. In her 80s she decided on her own to move into an elder living community not because she actually was having any issue doing things on her own, but because she knew that it was inevitable that she would start needing help and wanted to make sure she was somewhere that was equipped to handle it when it happened. She also decided on her own to surrender her license because she didn't think she should be allowed to drive anymore and took advantage of the community's shuttle buses when she needed to go places. I think she would have been the first one to say that she did not think she should not be the one trusted to make sure that she could use her computer safely and that systems that required people like her to know what to click are unethical!
- lossolo 16d agoA few days ago, my mother asked me to fix her YouTube because she kept getting something telling her to update. I looked at YouTube on her iPhone and saw an autoplaying video ad that displayed an animated fake system style pop-up button, designed to look like an important iPhone OS security update. The ad even showed an animation of the button appearing on the screen, making it look even more like a real system notification. This needs to stop.
- rectang 16d agoMoney from confused seniors getting scammed is a critical revenue stream. Without scams, ads are far less viable.
- jwrallie 16d agoThe problem is, Microsoft and Google themselves are doing shady things. A full screen advertising for using OneDrive on Windows and a full screen random request to use Google App when doing a Google search on Safari comes to mind. Apple is no different, when I press my Bluetooth button, it opens Music on macOS. I’m sure we can find rather strange things going on Ubuntu too and bending the definitions a bit, there are several pleads for donation like on Gnome, Vim and Wikipedia that are a bit questionable.
- BLKNSLVR 16d agoThey've all spent too long getting high on their own supply. The longer a company is able to profits from something, the less they'll be able to see that it may even possibly be a net negative for society.
- CGMthrowaway 16d ago>Ad blocking has become a safety issue. My parents are at an age where they fall for things. If a malicious ad pops up and offers to install McAfee, some other form of crapware, or outright scamware, they'll click that ad and install the thing. I've been using the internet since the 80s. This has always been the case. Even before graphical browsers.
- transcriptase 16d agoNonsense. Before the advent of those first “you’re the 1000th visitor” banners or relatively harmless “worms” spready by literal .exe files sent by email in the early 2000s… most of the internet could be trusted by default. And at that point the blast radius was so hilariously small, some rando compromising your computer was a nuisance versus a threat to your financial wellbeing.
- kevin_thibedeau 16d agoViruses were common on FTP sites and BBSs. They weren't all benign. DOS in particular had zero protections against damaging code. Bot armies hadn't been developed yet so malicious destruction was just as likely an outcome.
- transcriptase 16d agoYes, and what did the damaging code and viruses actually do in that era? Software, OSs, and the internet at large were comically unsafe from a safety perspective. There was also a very high barrier of entry in terms of the skills required to take advantage of that, and very little incentive to do so compared to today or even 20 years ago.
- kevin_thibedeau 16d agoIf you got lucky, they just self-replicated onto floppies. Not so lucky, they would corrupt your hard drive.
- 16d ago
- technion 16d agoIt's not just elderly parents. I've sat in on many an incident where skilled people in accounts or HR similarly saw and ad and thought "I have to do this thing", leading to compromise.
- deepsun 16d agoGet Chromebook for them, I know it is backwards, but at least they won't install viruses.
- kevin_thibedeau 16d ago> filter malicious ads out of their own ad services It's worse than that. Google turned their exploit delivery platform into Google Tag Manager so they can be employed on more than just ads.
- tdeck 16d agoGoogle doesn't care about this. Try searching for a locksmith in your area on Google and the top results are all scans.
- arcanemachiner 16d agoHow would this scam work? Why would someone pose as a locksmith specifically?
- jagged-chisel 16d agoSpecifically? Because it’s something people search for. Because it’s something people pay for. If the scammer can get you to pay for “a visit“ upfront, and never show up, they’ve made money.
- PokeyCat 16d agoI've had this happen to me personally on vacation - we were locked out of our rental car, asked a person at the nearby place to call a locksmith to get me back in, and they didn't quote price over the phone. When they got there, they popped the lock and then wanted $200, cash only so you couldn't chargeback, which I learned after the fact is completely outrageous for that service. They had a lot of fake Google reviews that were glowing, overshadowed by the real ones calling out the scam. I've heard worse happening in other cases where they drill locks and then quote much higher than $200 after they do it, it's sadly common.
- BLKNSLVR 16d ago> If Google, MS, etc. had ever gotten together and developed a way to filter malicious ads out of their own ad services This is the crux of it. If they can't block scammers from their own platform then they should be fined out of having the platform in the first place. The profit they make should easily cover it - unless they like profiting from promoting scams, in which case they should be fined out of having the platform in the first place.
- mancerayder 16d agoI love Brave's seemingly easy and automatic ad blocking, but turning off shields for important things like banking and government sites is a chore. I struggled with domain whitelisting (if I'm honest I gave up on it some time ago as the recipes I found online didn't work). So I can't recommend it for less technical people. It's a step away from being the easiest way to control all that annoying content that comes at you when you're trying to do something else.
- ceroxylon 16d agoThe kinds of banner ads that exist now are atrocious, as bad as they have ever been. Anything that masquerades as a legitimate internet or site service should be banned, I really detest the ones that are simply some sort of fake captcha, sign in, etc. They must pay the best because so many old forums that are/were near and dear to my heart use them to pay for servers, hopefully because they only saw the profit number and didn't consider the consequences, but you never know.
- LordDragonfang 16d agoIt feels weird that everyone is talking like Google has banned adblocking in Chrome, when there's dozens of adblockers still in the extension store, including an updated version of uBO that works 90% the same. Ad-blocking is a safety issue, but luckily you can still block them just fine.[1] The only thing this heavily neuters is tracking blocking, but no one admits that because they know, deep down, that ~0% of the non-tech crowd cares, so it's not as good at stirring up outrage as being dishonest is. [1] If anything gorhill is to blame for the safety issue, since he refused to update his extension in-place, so any distant relatives will have the adblockers you installed for them removed, instead of updating to the fully functional Mv3 version.
- OkayPhysicist 15d agoDon't try to deflect blame from the irredeemably evil fucks over at the Chrome team, who are sitting in their dark lair rubbing their hands together, scheming about how they can fuck the user over today. They are always to blame. gorhill made the reasonable move of not updating in-place because the new version is strictly inferior and you don't just make a massive downgrade like that without the opportunity to explain it to people.
- TiredOfLife 16d agouBlock Origin lite is an mv3 extension and blocks ads.
- tim333 16d agoYou can still use Chrome with uBlock Origin Lite. That's what I got for mum and mostly use myself. Works fine.
- pieter_mj 16d agoAdditionally, set a malware blocking dns in the router and a Mb-dns/DoH in the browser and move them to Linux.
- mikey2410 15d agoI've been loading OpenWRT onto meraki MX64s and installing Adblock home + tailscale. I have them report in to my Home assistant instance for firmware updates & can access the router ui over tailscale for admin. I've done this for my mom, my in-laws, and my brother.