Google Will Reduce Accidental Mobile Ad Clicks, With Mandatory Borders and More

Mark Wilson submits news that Google is throwing a bone to mobile users annoyed by ads that (accidentally, or accidentally-on-purpose) make it too easy to accidentally click, breaking your browsing flow, by making those ads a bit less clickable. Writes Beta News: The company is taking steps to make the 'user experience' of ads a little better. It recognizes that advertisements that get clicked accidentally don't benefit anybody. They end up irritating the clicker, and are unlikely to be of value to the company that placed the ad. With around half of ad clicks being made by mistake, Google is now taking steps to stop this from happening — great news for users advertisers alike. In all, Google is making three key changes to ads that appear on smartphones and tablets, starting off by adding an unclickable border to the outer edges of advertisements.

Comments

Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malware?

[urbanriot]

Isn't this idea an aspect of reducing the amount of accidental clicks on malware advertisements? If so, why don't they just stop hosting malware or scam sites. There are certain keywords for legitimate services or products that are always guaranteed to give top hits in malware.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Republican rulers of Google make too many stadium fulls of cash from them. They hate us, like all of their kind, and they want us to die. That is why they do this.

Good on Google

[Anonymous Coward]

To the bewilderment of everyone I know, I don't use anything by Google. But this news story is good. I might try them again next year.

Re:Good on Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess. You also don't have a television and you never miss an opportunity to point this out to others.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying customers are paying customers. If they start banning malware, then people will ask for bans on clickbait sites, porn sites, stupid FB games, independent news outlets, political campaigns! Think of the children!

it would be pretty to think so

[fermion]

I suspect the primary reason for this is to maintain high ad prices by not charging advertisers for useless click. For instance, if I were to post this response on a mobile platform, I would first have to close the ad tab at the bottom so I could click the submit button. Sometimes instead of closing the ad, I click it. If the advertiser is getting charged per click, and google were the provider, this would generate revenue for Google while providing negative value for the advertiser, as it would tend to make me dislike the advertiser. This would tend to push ad rates down, which still would not compensate for the negative end user impression.

Re:it would be pretty to think so

[tlhIngan]

I suspect the primary reason for this is to maintain high ad prices by not charging advertisers for useless click. For instance, if I were to post this response on a mobile platform, I would first have to close the ad tab at the bottom so I could click the submit button. Sometimes instead of closing the ad, I click it. If the advertiser is getting charged per click, and google were the provider, this would generate revenue for Google while providing negative value for the advertiser, as it would tend to make me dislike the advertiser. This would tend to push ad rates down, which still would not compensate for the negative end user impression.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Of course Google is trying to reduce accidental ad clicks - because accidentals reduce ad rates if advertisers feel most people are not viewing the ad because they want to.

And you can bet more than a few advertisers probably pulled their campaigns after seeing most of their money went to Google over people who never intended to follow through with the ad.

Anytime Google does something beneficial to the users, it's probably because the advertisers got pissed off. Here, it would be advertisers getting pissed off paying for accidental taps.

Google rarely, if ever, allows real malware to slip through. Yes, there is adware and exploitive free to play games, but you can uninstall them and they're gone. What makes malware malware is you need to ffr to get rid of it.

Sorry, not true. Maybe if you stick on the straight and narrow "Google" ads, but Google owns most of the ad networks out there, including your favorites like DoubleClick (famous pop ups and pop unders, and more than a few times sent infected ads), AdMob (who does most of the mobile advertising - Google themselves don't do it), as well as several others. Google owns the online advertising business - the only ones they don't are the scummy ones who advertise on bittorrent sites and the like

Just half?

[codepigeon]

I think that might be a liberal estimate. That number is 100% for me. I have been conditioned to immediately click the close button for every add that pops up. I don't even bother to notice what product is being advertised. I learned LONG ago that clicking on the flashy ad usually got me in trouble...followed by a format/reinstall.

I would like to know who does click on ads though. Someone has to be doing it on purpose. Curious minds want to know.

Re:Just half?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes it is nice to pollute the algorithm with false positives.

Re:Just half?

[Anonymous Coward]

morons.

the same 3-5% of people who actually respond to email spam.

Re:Just half?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes its nice to pollute the algorithm with false positives.

Re:Just half?

[penguinoid]

I click on the sponsored link when the sponsored link is the exact url I wanted to go to. I wonder if this marks me as "someone who clicks on ads target him for more ads".

Re:Just half?

[Anonymous Coward]

First time I ever used the internet, in 2001, I bought half an hour at an internet cafe. I had no idea what internet was for, nobody I knew used it, and I spent it all punching the monkey and winning 50 bucks.
Those 30 minutes were enough to teach me never to click on ads. Ever.

Re:Just half?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes its nice to pollute the algorithm with false positives..

Re:Just half?

[TheCarp]

This. The only time I ever click on them is accidentally.

But you have to realize, most people don't really know half of whats going on behind the scenes as they browse the web. Hell, I don't, I know enough to know how much is going on and how to find out more if I want, but who really looks? All the time? At some point you have to trust trust and everyone has to do it at a high level.

Most people don't have any conception of what a potentially hostile environment they have entered. Browsing the web is like replacing the hand shake with receptive anal sex and going out to a diner party:
"Hi there ReputableSite.Com my good friend"
"Hey there browser, come meet all my friends, we have a private room for 500, and they ALL want to meet you! Oh, is that condom? You need to leave that here or the door wont work."

Bad Design.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does slashdot put the icons on top of the headline so you can't read it?

Re: Bad Design.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have to click on the article...

Really, you haven't figured out that dice+slashdot is just clickbait?

Re: Bad Design.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could actually read the headlines Timothy writes, would you bother clicking anything? Scroll down to read the amazing answer!

There is your answer.

Good news for Google, anyway

[93 Escort Wagon]

It's good news for Google and their advertisers - fewer unwanted clicks means lower payouts.

I'm not sure whether it's anything but neutral for end users. I don't think Google's ads are the ones with the tiny little close buttons that induce false clicks - THOSE are rather irritating. But if Google really wanted to benefit end users, they'd start screening their ad content more rigorously.

Re:Good news for Google, anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Google makes a profit for each click, wanted or not, so doing anything that reduces the number of clicks reduces their profits.

Re:Good news for Google, anyway

[Mr Z]

Unless it allows them to raise their per-click rates on the premise of "quality clickthroughs."

a better way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Adblock works fine with mobile firefox. No "accidental ad clicks", no tracking by bottom-feeders.

Re:a better way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, most mobile users stick to the default browser or Chrome.

Re:a better way...

[cfalcon]

This is a real problem on ios. Safari has all manner of powerful placement, and there's no real way around it (maybe with jailbreaks you could temporarily swap Mercury or Atomic into that spot, I dunno). This is all an Apple setup, and beyond the obvious choice of not using Apple, it is rather difficult to get an ad free experience there. Also annoying is the lack of ability to claim, with full and convincing mockery, that the browser is desktop Firefox. Mobile sites are awful, and usually prevent pinch-zoom and full scrolling- all because the browser string and other things identify the browser to the remote. Again, third party browsers fix this (and Chrome has it built in), but it's still very frustrating.

Smartphone users

[Anonymous Coward]

With around half of ad clicks being made by mistake

Half? That'd seem to require a great deal of tolerance.

Now, if Slashdot would fix its mobile ads.

[hackwrench]

They're too close to the Submit button on posts. Slashdot also doesn't do a good job of indicating the post is actually being sent.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[Anonymous Coward]

But all Google's products ARE malware. If you have an Android device (or an iPhone for that matter), you are carrying a device constructed to spy on you. It also has some additional features (like a phone function). But don't mistake it's primary purpose. The same holds for the spying search engine, the spying mail application, the spying map application, etc.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[Krojack]

Because the companies (malware produces in this case) would scream and kick fowl.

How about getting rid of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot spam like "Free Apps". The only reason they get clicks are accidental.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[ColdWetDog]

In that case, perhaps we can sic PETA on the malware authors. Two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[nmb3000]

If so, why don't they just stop hosting malware or scam sites. There are certain keywords for legitimate services or products that are always guaranteed to give top hits in malware.

There's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!"

After several people in my family got bitten by advertising malware, primarily due to clicking the top Google result after searching for popular open source projects such as "firefox" or "open office" or "vlc" (I literally watched as this happened to one of them), I helped them install Firefox if they didn't have it, and AdBlock+ with an auto-updating subscription. The two more tech-savvy I showed NoScript and explained how it use it.

Since then they've had next to no problems with this kind of drive-by malware. They also really love ad-free YouTube videos and a much faster annoyance-free browsing experience.

In the (distant) past I would have felt a little bad about this kind of carte blanche blocking advertising. Not anymore. It's defensive driving for the Web, and the only smart way to use it.

use lucky patcher, save a tree

[Anonymous Coward]

Good move by google but i'm still blocking all those ads at the source. Saves about 50% of my mobile data usage in-app. Maybe if Google would subsidize my connection it'd be ok to clog up the pipes with ads but until then, no thanks.

Or Stop Using Google

[theshowmecanuck]

I have started to use duckduckgo.com for searches when I'm looking for actual articles or information. I have found that I get better results. On a Google search for some information on SaaS billing integration for example, all I got from Google were spiels from companies selling shit. No articles. I did the exact same search in duckduckgo and found something I could use right away. No I don't work for duckduckgo, but I am getting sick of more and more not being able to get useful results from Google. Maybe Yahoo would give better searches to, but I have tried them lately.

Google should concentrate on better and more useful search results and stop fucking around with pushing more advertising, and to stop forcing web sites to code their sites the Google way or be kicked so far down the listing as to not be there at all. But I know that'll never happen. Maybe it is easier for Google's algorithms to mess with the sites if they are in a Google approved format. Google should concentrate on returning useful web searches. But I guess they are useful to the advertisers even if it isn't useful so much for people who are trying to use the internet to get things done.

Re:Or Stop Using Google

[cfalcon]

A ringing endorsement for Bing! I also find that Bing actually has solid results. To the point where I'd like my browser to, maybe when shift-enter is pressed on search, open google in the main window and bing in a second tab (generally using duckduckgo to get the Bing results, of course- I like their privacy policy better than Microsoft's).

Bing is an excellent search engine. No, it's no google, but people who have spent just countless hours trying to render google unusable for search terms where a functional google denies them revenue don't always have the equivalent resources to blow up the Bing results. Plus, honestly, if you want to find a thing, wouldn't you want TWO search engines looking, not just one?

Bing gets a lot more shit than it deserves. I'd love for someone to come in and post just THREE search engines better than Bing (obviously, Google is one of the three).

Re:Or Stop Using Google

[Anonymous Coward]

No one gives a shit that you use DDG, you fucking moron. Funny, that you DDG shit stains can't help but promote the fuck out of it. No one gives a shit.

Re:Or Stop Using Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, Bing. The POS search engine hated by everyone but militant MS fanboys that like to eat their own dog shit. Let's see what the Ed snowden archives have on Microsoft:

July 31, 2012

Microsoft (MS) began encrypting web-based chat with the introduction of the new outlook.com service. This new Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption effectively cut off collection of the new service for FAA 702 and likely 12333 (to some degree) for the Intelligence Community (IC). MS, working with the FBI, developed a surveillance capability to deal with the new SSL. These solutions were successfully tested and went live 12 Dec 2012. The SSL solution was applied to all current FISA and 702/PRISM requirements - no changes to UTT tasking procedures were required. The SSL solution does not collect server-based voice/video or file transfers. The MS legacy collection system will remain in place to collect voice/video and file transfers. As a result there will be some duplicate collection of text-based chat from the new and legacy systems which will be addressed at a later date. An increase in collection volume as a result of this solution has already been noted by CES.

March 15, 2013

SSO's PRISM program began tasking all Microsoft PRISM selectors to Skype because Skype allows users to log in using account identifiers in addition to Skype usernames. Until now, PRISM would not collect any Skype data when a user logged in using anything other than the Skype username which resulted in missing collection; this action will mitigate that. In fact, a user can create a Skype account using any e-mail address with any domain in the world. UTT does not currently allow analysts to task these non-Microsoft e-mail addresses to PRISM, however, SSO intends to fix that this summer. In the meantime, NSA, FBI and Dept of Justice coordinated over the last six months to gain approval for PRINTAURA to send all current and future Microsoft PRISM selectors to Skype. This resulted in about 9800 selectors being sent to Skype and successful collection has been received which otherwise would have been missed.

March 7, 2014

PRISM now collects Microsoft Skydrive data as part of PRISM'S standard Stored Communications collection package for a tasked FISA Amendments Act Section 702 (FAA702) selector. This means that analysts will no longer have to make a special request to SSO for this - a process step that many analysts may not have known about. This new capability will result in a much more complete and timely collection response from SSO for our Enterprise customers. This success is the result of the FBI working for many months with Microsoft to get this tasking and collection solution established.

Re:Or Stop Using Google

[Ol Olsoc]

I have started to use duckduckgo.com for searches when I'm looking for actual articles or information. I have found that I get better results. On a Google search for some information on SaaS billing integration for example, all I got from Google were spiels from companies selling shit. No articles.

Same here. I found little of value, and when using Google, almost never want to go to the first results. So DDG is how I roll.

And they can fornicate themselves if they think they can dictate how I design my site.

Helping out google's algorithm

[tompaulco]

Here is a helpful hint for google's algorithm to determine if the click was accidental:
If I clicked it, it was accidental.
If I did not click it, that was intentional.
The only time I ever click on an ad is when I got suckered in by a deceitful company trying to appear to be a legitimate news article. For example, I got suckered in by "New Law has Insurance Customers Fuming" headline...once. A company that has to fool people into clicking on it's links does not deserve to be in business and should have their IP blacklisted so that no one else will ever accidentally visit their site.

Re:Helping out google's algorithm

[Mr Z]

Yeah, that "new law" one is f'ing annoying. It's been a "new law" since, uhm, for as long as I've been buying insurance? News flash: You pay different insurance rates based on your driving profile! WOW. They've started changing up the wording with other non sequiturs, but it's the same crap ad. (Why would the DMV give two shits about how much I'm paying for insurance?)

Won't Get Fooled Again

[tepples]

There's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!"

Meet the new BHOss
Same as the old GWBoss

Re:Won't Get Fooled Again

[ShaunC]

He said he installed an extension, not a Browser Helper Object!

What about free surveys?

[Anonymous Coward]

Occasionally I run into the "complete a survey to continue your download" or some other nonsense. I hate those. The other day I decided on a whim to see how deep the rabbit hole they go. I set up a virtual machine and tried to answer them with fake info and a dead end email. Long story short, after 20 minutes I gave up what was supposed to be a 30 second survey. Never did unlock the "free" download.

HA HA HA Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

God how I hate the giant right to the border ads this very site has on Android. 90% of the times I skip the comments on mobile because it's so easily to click on the stupid Kim Kardashian game or other bullshit. Good riddance!

They did

[rsilvergun]

Google rarely, if ever, allows real malware to slip through. Yes, there is adware and exploitive free to play games, but you can uninstall them and they're gone. What makes malware malware is you need to ffr to get rid of it.

I serve some ads on my site glimmersoft.com (shameless plug) and I only serve Google ads for just that reason. There's plenty of folks with better rates but they just don't have the resources to keep up with the bad guys.

Re:They did

[cfalcon]

No, fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks that way.

If it tricks me into an installation (or tries), it's malware- period. Block, remove, disable scripting, whatever. If someone who isn't full tech browses to 100 sites and gets 100 bullshit whatever the fucks, he shouldn't have to spend hours running uninstall 100 times, while someone is like "hey, it's not malware, we just hijacked the search result for an open source project, made a name that looked similar, and started serving adds on your desktop, installed seventeen fucking advertising bars that spawn more in your browser... but you clicked on it, so you must have fucking wanted it, and after all, if you uninstall everything, it's gone."

Funny, it doesn't pop up a thing every time you start that says "Hi, I'm the shit factory that spawned when you fucked up your firefox install. Click here to be rid of me!". No no no, oh no- now you gotta browse to your add/remove programs, with a different GUI every OS release, find whatever the thing registered itself with (and hey, it also registered seventeen other dumb fucking things), and get rid of that.

If it is EVER installed by accident, if it ever comes with a default checkbox when you download java, if it ever tries ANY fucking trick- IT IS MALWARE!

Slashdot ads suck!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate reading /. on my phone, always hit 1-2 ads scrolling the page.

Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they fix screen touches registering after the UI has changed. The big problem on Android is seeing a link and clicking on it only to have something render on the page and shift everything and then the click registers on an ad instead of the link.

Nice step, but

[bobmajdakjr]

there are ads on imgur which on windows phone will open the windows phone store, usually to some stupid query involving a shitty dragon game, without you having ever touched the screen. how is that for messing with the flow.

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

All google needs to do is remove fraudlent virus/malware found adverts...

Re:Heh

[Ol Olsoc]

All google needs to do is remove fraudlent virus/malware found adverts...

Kinda like blocking all ads.

My solution is better.

[Lumpy]

Root and install a blocking hosts file.

  Bethesda proved that ad's on free games is only for complete crap games. Fallout shelter has ZERO ad's ZERO nags, and they are making money hand over fist with it.

So if your app has ad's, it's a strong sign that it's a complete crap app.

Luckily 99% of all free apps are trash, so I dont use them, the ones that are worth buying, I buy.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps there might be some location where they're working as a contractor and WANT to deliver malware while having plausible deniability?

a better way...

[tomofumi]

they should just stop the immediate action after the ad click, with a prompt like "OK / Cancel" before launching the ad's site contents.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[rtb61]

You host the ad, you promote the product and basically earning a percentage of revenue from that sale, then you should be liable for the message. You get paid to promote the message, you are liable for the message. A lot more civil suits need to start targeting those who promote false messages and think they are free to tell any lie imaginable, in fact an infinite numbers of lies because 'er' 'um' they are greedy and do not want to take any responsibility at all for their actions.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever considered eating your own turds?

Google does not care about accidental clicks

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose some of the mobile advertisers found creative ways to avoid paying Google what it feels is its due

Google does not care about accidental ad clicks – ad marking on google.com got subliminal a long time ago, if they could get away with white on white marking without the EU or DOJ complaining they would have implemented it a long time ago

Android

[ThatsNotPudding]

Yes, there is adware and exploitive free to play games, but you can uninstall them and they're gone.

I can't (and never will) speak for iOS, but on Android, when you hit the back button one too many times (overshooting the app main page), boom: full-screen scummy ad.

Please tell us how to 'uninstall' that behavior.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the page the ad points to first hosts legitimate content, and only after some time starts the malware-serving? This way it is not possible to verify the legitimacy before serving the ad.

Worst offender

[crossmr]

The worst I know of is the app "Skout".

They have really scummy tricks. It's really a mystery why google has allowed them to keep doing it.

Basically when you load a chat you see a text box, which normally you'd press to start typing. The kicker? it's not a text box. A moment after the chat loads the text box floats up and is replaced with an ad in it's spot. Even if you click directly on the box and not on the ad, it still brings up the ad. Until the text box locks position above the ad box it's not a text box, it's an extension of the ad.

Re:Worst offender

[CockMonster]

I'm pretty sure Skout uses MoPub, not Ad Exchange

Re:Worst offender

[crossmr]

The app is still under google's purview. It's on the app store, and affects users of android and google services. They do have some rules for apps and deceptive ad practises, regardless of the company should be one of them.
 

For the BEST custom hosts file?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

* :)

By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & in myself, via hosts/custom hosts files use.

(Accept NO substitutes!)

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out'

[Anonymous Coward]

Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apk

Ublock does less, consumes more vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do above & block ads better vs. addons & more efficiently in cpu + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

APK

P.S.=> UBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

Ublock's NOT as efficient as hosts:

Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test it using my program.

UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

Screenshot -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

+

ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

+

UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slow mode of operation (usermode = more messagepassing overheads + context switch, vs. hosts in kernelmode).

BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

It's GUARANTEED safe being checked by 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

AdBlock+ does less, consumes more vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

APK

P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

+

ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

+

Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

What's best?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk