Now Even YouTube Serves Ads With CPU-draining Cryptocurrency Miners (arstechnica.com)

This crap needs to be regulated by the government by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Because itâ(TM)s getting out of hand and they will fix everything.

Ad Blockers by sconeu · 2018-01-26 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is why I run an adblocker and a script blocker.

And why I refuse to visit sites that insist I turn it off.

Speaking of which, anyone know any WebExtensions that do anti-anti-adblock? The old one was XUL.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Re: Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:10 · Score: 0

Just click reader view. That solves most anti Adblock for me.
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:22 · Score: 0

Right dere wit you, brudda
Re: Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:22 · Score: 0

That doesn't solve this problem derp. That's like firing the head of the FBI to get rid of an ongoing investigation. Stupid AF
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:30 · Score: 1

I sure as hell can.
Usually through a liberal application of NoScript, RequestPolicy, and, if absolutely necessary, raw HTTP requests to their API layer (because fuck you AND the horse you rode in on, you dumbshit "UX" assholes).
Re: Ad Blockers by DemoLiter3 · 2018-01-26 08:32 · Score: 1

I just watch YT via youtube-dl or directly via mpv (which uses youtube-dl hook). Their new UI is too retardedly slow to even look at it.
Re: Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:32 · Score: 0

I see what u did there.
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:32 · Score: -1

How about stop leeching other people's content? Adblocking == theft.
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:50 · Score: 0

I'm writing one now, it's pretty easy. Basically, you have to create two web views, one with all the ads running to verify back to their server the ads have loaded. Then you create a second view that is actually visible with the ads stripped out. Kind of wasteful CPU and bandwidth but it works!
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:14 · Score: 0

Unless your site is behind a paywall, I fail to see how adblocking is theft.
Re:Ad Blockers by brewthatistrue · 2018-01-26 09:14 · Score: 3, Informative

An arstechnica commenter mentioned NoCoin which is a standalone extension.
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
https://github.com/keraf/NoCoi...
You can also take the URL they curate and then import it into your adblocker of choice.
https://raw.githubusercontent....
Re: Ad Blockers by yithar7153 · 2018-01-26 09:14 · Score: 1

Like DemoLiter3, I just watch YouTube through youtube-dl or mpv with youtube-dl hook.
Re: Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:33 · Score: 0

If youtube was bad with flash, now I had to GreaseMonkey it to be somewhat usable in my old pc. But got tired of having to deal with the DOM and the growing bloat of crap scripts, so now like you, just youtube-dl all and can't be happier.
Re: Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:48 · Score: 1

Suck it up crybaby. Adblockers == freedom from bullshit
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:48 · Score: 0

https://pi-hole.net/
YouTube can serve that shit, but it's the fucking client's fault for requesting it.
Learn to surf, and this won't be an issue.
Re:Ad Blockers by vux984 · 2018-01-26 09:53 · Score: 2

And doesn't accomplish anything against a crypto currency miner.
Re: Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:53 · Score: 0

Or to my router so I don't have to much with 20+ device configs
Re: Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:11 · Score: 1

Or tracking.
Re: Ad Blockers by thewolfkin · 2018-01-26 11:09 · Score: 1

Like DemoLiter3, I just watch YouTube through youtube-dl or mpv with youtube-dl hook.
oh good. There are a few channels I need to watch videos from time to time but don't want to give revenue to like when I'm trying to show someone the moron who went to Japan. I've been downloading the videos and watching 'em that way. I still feel gross but I don't have to worry about having contributed to the problem.

--
Just another second banana
Re: Ad Blockers by sexconker · 2018-01-26 11:42 · Score: 1

Can you explain how? I'm familiar with youtube-dl, but not mpv.
Do you really see a youtube link, then slap it into youtube-dl, wait for the download, then watch the video?
Do you browse/search youtube at all? I find that finding shit is worse than the page with the video on it, so I can't imagine how your method makes things better. Once you've got the link to the video you want to watch you're past most of the bullshit.
Re:Ad Blockers by Kremmy · 2018-01-26 12:18 · Score: 1

That whole idea went out the window when social media became the source of the content.
Too many websites seem to expect us to pay them for content they stole themselves.
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 12:30 · Score: 0

Well, then! Better get on the horn with the police to let them know that someone on the internet is using an adblocker! I'm sure they'll rightly see it as a top priority. Well? Run along now! Time's a-wastin', and the perps are probably making a clean getaway as you dawdle.
Re:Ad Blockers by theweatherelectric · 2018-01-26 13:54 · Score: 1

You've linked to two separate projects. Here's a better link.
Re:Ad Blockers by brewthatistrue · 2018-01-26 14:09 · Score: 1

Thanks! You are correct. My mistake for mixing up the origin of the 3rd link more.
Re:Ad Blockers by ncc74656 · 2018-01-26 14:40 · Score: 1

A fair bit of my YouTube watching is through Kodi's YouTube plugin. It doesn't bother to show ads. I tried switching one of my TVs from a Raspberry Pi with LibreELEC (a Kodi distribution) to a Roku stick, but no matter what kind of adblocking I tried implementing on my network, the Roku would still run ads. The Roku is pretty much just for Amazon Prime Video now
On the desktop, I had run across HookTube a while back. I already have uBlock installed, but with a URL-rewriting plugin (just ran across Requestly a little bit ago...stupid adverbed name, but it does what it says it does), you change the "you" in a YouTube URL to "hook" and get redirected to HookTube.
I've also set it up to redirect Wikipedia links (desktop or mobile) to Infogalactic, which means Requestly gets to replace the InfoSextant extension as well. That's two sources of SJW convergence knocked out.

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re: Ad Blockers by tonique · 2018-01-26 19:31 · Score: 1

Thank you! That is a great piece of information! I had no idea mpv could do that...
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 00:31 · Score: 0

It's getting harder to leave my adblocker universally enabled. I can't boycott every site that requires I disable it.
If you don't want to deal with full-on 'noscript', you will find 'yesscript2' very handy. Every site I've visited that whinges about adblocking shuts up with one click on the yesscript2 icon (it reloads the page for you as well).
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 00:46 · Score: 0

Ublock is not an ad blocker, it's a malware blocker
I'll turn it off if you guarantee your ads are malware free.
Re: Ad Blockers by schamarty · 2018-01-27 00:52 · Score: 1

mpv is just a player; if you really want to use youtube from a terminal install something called "mps-youtube" ("pip3 install --user mps-youtube" should do it).
This is much more of a youtube interface. It in turn can use vlc (what I use) or, I seem to recall, mpv, as the actual player.
You can search for videos, sort them by various criteria, download them via its builtin downloader or anything else you have... it's a very nice tool!
Re:Ad Blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-08 05:30 · Score: 0

If you are just after the text on the page, use links or some other text browser.

Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:10 · Score: -1

I don't know why this is the first time I'm realizing this, but "ads" that cryptomine seem like a great idea. Given the amount of web browsing that is just that, with an otherwise unoccupied CPU, I'd much rather the sites I visit be earning some money directly from my use than displaying crappy ads all over and splitting that income with the middlemen.

Re:Good idea, actually by jeffb+(2.718) · 2018-01-26 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Unoccupied CPUs" were a waste back when a CPU used the same amount of power idling as working.
Today, giving my "unoccupied CPU" a task for your benefit is theft of my battery life (time until I need to recharge), battery lifetime (total number of cycles), electricity (both direct device usage and indirect cooling needs), and device lifetime (hotter devices fail sooner).
Now, if you'd like to offer me payment for these things you wish to consume, we can talk.
Re:Good idea, actually by meerling · 2018-01-26 08:19 · Score: 2

What makes you think they all unload when you leave that site?
There are lots of them that just keep running and eating up your resources even when you want to use them.
That's the problem with people secretly sticking their hands in your pocket, you have no idea how much they're going to take or how long they'll be doing it.
The very fact that they hid this from you is ALWAYS a bad sign.
Re:Good idea, actually by thebes · 2018-01-26 08:19 · Score: 0

Then don't visit those sites. Parent was suggesting this would be a method of transferring value in exchange for your consumption of their service.
Re:Good idea, actually by war4peace · 2018-01-26 08:21 · Score: 1

It really depends.
Visiting from a desktop PC with adequate cooling? OK, I guess.
Using a laptop, tablet or mobile device? Bad, really bad.
Then it's a matter of how much mining is being performed and where. I assume most people leave a few tabs open, for example one with e-mail, one with news aggregator, a few community websites, maybe a couple social media tabs. If all of them cryptomine, you're in deep shit. Also if they mine while the tab is in the background, you're also in deep shit.

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:23 · Score: 0

I kind of agree, but at the same time, many are now viewing the web on mobile devices etc. Browser vendors are constantly bickering on which has the best performance and least impact on mobile device battery usage, and people value some of that.
While I too would rather have my workstation use a minimal amount of CPU to help the cause, and ease my conscience that I'm not undermining the reason why ads exist in the first place, and supporting my favorite content providers... I wonder if some of the side effects might not overcome some of the good.
I'm not lost to the fact that many ads are actually quite damaging on battery life as well, but I'm not informed as to what the numbers look like by comparison. Part of me wants to think that mining would be more-so. Maybe I'm completely off the mark, but just a couple of cents I had..
Re: Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Right now we don't have that option. Because everyone who does this, does it without telling the user. Until it becomes a CHOICE, they can fuck off.
Re:Good idea, actually by pezpunk · 2018-01-26 08:34 · Score: 1

you list about four costs that probably add up to a penny or two per hour, particularly if the mining javascript has its intensity set below 40%, which was the default last time i checked.
you aren't being paid because the idea is YOU are paying a tiny microfee (in the form of an advertisement, or in this case a minor uptick in your cpu usage) for access to the content you are viewing.
i implemented a Monero JavaScript on a website i run, but it was an option that was DISABLED by default, and my users could voluntarily opt-in if they felt like donating some CPU cycles to me. It was 100% transparent and voluntary. A few did.

--
i could live a little longer in this prison
Re:Good idea, actually by EvilSS · 2018-01-26 08:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't know why this is the first time I'm realizing this, but "ads" that cryptomine seem like a great idea. Given the amount of web browsing that is just that, with an otherwise unoccupied CPU, I'd much rather the sites I visit be earning some money directly from my use than displaying crappy ads all over and splitting that income with the middlemen.
I would be fine with this in place of ads if a) it's fully disclosed b) it's opt-in, and c) it's set to consume no more than say 25% of my CPU.

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:41 · Score: 1

The problem is that if given the choice between extremely intrusive ads, or ads that cryptomine, most advertisers will happily take both, and you will still get the "free iPhone" popover ads, that burn your CPU as long as they can, running up your energy bills.
There is no real negotiation. The ad guys want to trespass and seize as much of your devices and your attention as possible. The only thing stopping them is the fact that OS vendors and browser vendors have to do something or else people will change platforms. If the ad guys could run a keylogger, install malware, run miners on all your stuff, then encrypt your files to demand a ransom, they would do it in a heartbeat.
Best thing is to run your browser in a VM, where it is limited on how many cores, and what percentage usage it can use the cores. That way, if stuff does get around the OS and browser, what it can steal off your machine is limited.
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:53 · Score: 0

That would be an option IF the sites asked permission first. How are you supposed to know which sites not to use if all those sites conceal what they're doing?
Re:Good idea, actually by jeffb+(2.718) · 2018-01-26 08:53 · Score: 1

How do you figure the cost of losing half your battery time? From what I've directly observed, having a few badly-behaved Web pages open can take me from six hours of battery life to two or three.
I've been known to pay for ad-free access to content, and I've been willing to accept ads as a way to compensate content providers. Ads are simply getting too expensive to accept now -- the electricity cost is small, but the costs in battery life, stability, and safety are just too high.
(And that's omitting the attention costs. Static ads? Fine. Static ads for things I'm actually interested in? Heck, I'll click through them! But autoplay video, distracting animations, malware? Nope. Bad for my perceptual and cognitive health.)
Re:Good idea, actually by gnick · 2018-01-26 08:57 · Score: 2

Now, if you'd like to offer me payment for these things you wish to consume, we can talk.
Were you able to see their content? You got paid. You're not going to get reimbursed for the power consumed by your TV or DVR while you're fast-forwarding through commercials either.
I don't like the miners either, but I understand that ads are the price of content. The alternative is paid content, which you're free to switch to.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Good idea, actually by jeffb+(2.718) · 2018-01-26 09:26 · Score: 1

If we really want to use this role-reversed metaphor, they're paying me (with their content) for my attention (to their ads). Ideally, my favorable and engaged attention, not my swearing-at-the-site-as-I-try-to-close-my-hung-browser attention.
In point of fact, I've decided that many sites offer inadequate "pay" for the resource hit they impose, whether from ads or just bad coding. Sometimes I switch to viewing them in a different browser that mitigates these resource attacks. Most often, I just stop visiting.
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:27 · Score: 0

Cryptomining seems to me like a fundamentally different form of payment for content than viewing an ad. A reasonable one on its own, possibly, if they're up-front about it, but hidden as part of the ad is IMO even more scumbaggy than having a pay-service that also has ads.
With all the vulnerabilities and whatnot, why would youtube just pass-through arbitrary executable code from a third party? They should accept video ads or whatever static formats they want to offer, but arbitrary executable code is pretty unreasonable.
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:37 · Score: 0

If we really want to use this role-reversed metaphor, they're paying me (with their content) for my attention (to their ads).
Isn't that exactly what I said? Yeah, I agree. Nailed it.
-gnick
Re:Good idea, actually by monkeyporn · 2018-01-26 09:41 · Score: 1

It's probably less than 25% in that a single page's javascript operates on a single logical core and a dual-core processor w/hyperthreading has four logical cores.
Re:Good idea, actually by LiquidAvatar · 2018-01-26 09:50 · Score: 1

They are compensating you for these things by paying the people who make the content that you're watching so that you don't have to pay for that content. I agree that it's wrong of them to extract this service from you without your knowledge or consent (after all, in a normal commercial transaction, you should know how much something costs before you make the purchase), but I don't see anything wrong with a company offering people media access on the condition that they run mining software while they watch that media - as long as they're upfront about what they're doing.

--
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
-Voltaire
Re:Good idea, actually by AHuxley · 2018-01-26 09:59 · Score: 1

AC it would be a great idea if the user was asked and could see an amount been created for an account on that site.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re: Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:15 · Score: 0

Bunch of lies. YouTube was free for over a decade. Google even ran it ad free for years after they bought it.
You can't tell me a multi billion dollar company can't afford something.
Well you can, I just won't believe you.
Re: Good idea, actually by gnick · 2018-01-26 10:28 · Score: 1

Google even ran it ad free for years after they bought it.
If any company offers you anything for free, it's limited while they get you hooked or they're getting something from you that you haven't noticed.

You can't tell me a multi billion dollar company can't afford something.
Being able to afford something has nothing to do with it. TANSTAAFL. Everyone's in the game to make a profit and there's never enough.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:28 · Score: 0

And since you admit there is no consent, you should have no problem at all if we use ad blockers and ignore them, right?
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:52 · Score: 0

It is none of your business which sites other people visit.
Theft of CPU power creates a cost which YOU do not pay.
Since it is not your money - simply shut up.
Re:Good idea, actually by jeffb+(2.718) · 2018-01-26 11:01 · Score: 1

What if they install something that keeps mining after you leave the page?
What if they install something that keeps mining as a system service that starts up automatically whenever you boot your machine, and maybe sets up a proxy for them to communicate with other systems inside your LAN?
After all, if you've viewed their content, they're entitled to compensation, right?
I think we fundamentally agree that informed consent is the important thing, but I'm not willing to venture very far down the slippery slope of "compensate content producers by letting them run whatever they want on your machine".
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 11:08 · Score: 0

That's not quite how the math works. For one thing, with a single core doing a lot of work, and the rest sitting idle, that core will turbo-boost. Additionally, a two-core machine with hyper-threading (a version of SMT) is not the same as a four-core machine without; the two logical cores share resources, can end up competing with each other and interact in other ways, so you don't magically double performance by adding SMT.
Re:Good idea, actually by Pieroxy · 2018-01-26 11:18 · Score: 1

It's probably less than 25% in that a single page's javascript operates on a single logical core and a dual-core processor w/hyperthreading has four logical cores.
JavaScript has been able to work with multiple threads on modern browsers for quite a while now. Just google "web workers".

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 13:59 · Score: 0

Google is its own advertising company, why are they even using the likes of doubleclick and other ad agencies?
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 14:24 · Score: 1

Yea electricity isn't free and very few places have 100% green energy. Unauthorized crypto mining is a borderline malicious waste of all of our resources and my money.
Re:Good idea, actually by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 00:47 · Score: 0

Google is its own advertising company, why are they even using the likes of doubleclick and other ad agencies?
Err..Doubleclick *is* Google.

Distributing such small chunks can't be worth it.. by magarity · 2018-01-26 08:10 · Score: 1

Can the workloads really be broken down into such small chunks that running during a 15-30 second ad gets any useful work done? It seems coordinating breaking up and putting back together such small work parts would be more computational power than its worth.

Now's our chance! by fishscene · 2018-01-26 08:15 · Score: 1

Quick! Everyone stop using Youtube so we can swing the apocalypse back into the hands of the creators.

this is a shock by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:15 · Score: 0

What puzzles me most is that you tube isn't very popular, and unlikely to be wroth the effort in terms of getting the miner code to run on many computers...

Re:this is a shock by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:36 · Score: 1

you tube isn't very popular
O_o
Re:this is a shock by DontBeAMoran · 2018-01-26 08:37 · Score: 1

your comment

--
#DeleteFacebook

Re:Distributing such small chunks can't be worth i by bohmt · 2018-01-26 08:16 · Score: 1

The work is small. Just with a really low probability of success. This is why "mining" is usually done on GPUs, more tries more winnings.

Chrome has Extensions for that by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:16 · Score: 2, Informative

One that comes to the top of my mind is Mineblock.
It specifically blocks cryptominers of all kinds, even ones that the usual script blockers and other antimalware stuff miss.
It's not the only one, and I'm sure that eventually the others will catch up to these types of extensions, but it's still relatively early days for this kind of infestation.

Keep up to date on whatever you use, and those leeches won't find you an easy meal.

Re:Chrome has Extensions for that by 110010001000 · 2018-01-26 08:17 · Score: 1

Uh, it is called "adblock" or "ublock origin". Why wouldn't you block the ads itself?
Re:Chrome has Extensions for that by JaredOfEuropa · 2018-01-26 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Some people might want to allow regular ads to help pay for sites they visit, but specifically block mining ads to prevent them from draining the laptop battery.

I allowed ads for a long time for that reason, but now most of them are blocked because I got sick of the bouncing crap, auto-playing videos and ads with mouse-over actions. As far as I'm concerned, advertisers crapped the bed they sleep in.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Chrome has Extensions for that by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:25 · Score: 1

That's perfectly retarded. Ads are malware vectors. Anyone mining coin on your rig without your explicit permission is a potential thief already, but you think their other ads are all going to be above-board? Retarded.

Re:Distributing such small chunks can't be worth i by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:17 · Score: 1

It's the age of browser tabs. People open a tab with youtube and it stays open, often for hours.

Ad Blockers motherfucker! DO YOU GROK IT? by Chas · 2018-01-26 08:17 · Score: 1

This is why I absolutely refuse to to surf without adblockers in place.
The whole online ads thing has been a shit-show since the word "go".
And they piss and moan about it, while taking ever greater liberties with computing resources THEY DO NOT OWN.
You can't even trust GOOGLE for chrissakes! And they're a browser vendor? How VERY convenient!

You wanna block me from viewing your content because I don't let you infect, destabilize, and take over my system?
Fine, I don't need to see your shit content that bad. I'll go do something ELSE.

Online advertising is a Herpes infection.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2018-01-26 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Distributing such small chunks can't be worth i by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:20 · Score: 1

Does it really matter? They're still collecting:

1 - A theoretical dollar for the video view
2 - The ad revenue, and they get to top it off with 3:
3 - Tiny fractions of a monero-cent

Adding #3 is free for them. Why not include it?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2018-01-26 08:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Distributing such small chunks can't be worth i by war4peace · 2018-01-26 08:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Consider an algorithm such as Yescrypt (http://password-hashing.net/wiki/doku.php/yescrypt) which is a valid CPU cryptomining algorithm. My CPU (Broadwell i7 6800K) finds a share every 5 seconds with 11 threads running. I extrapolate a quad core CPU would find a share every 15-20 seconds. Those shares add up if the receiving wallet and mining pool are the same. This means wallet "iourthoesruithjvansoivrzupaweo" could have a swarm 10K workers mining for 30 seconds each on the same pool, and find 10K shares every 30 seconds.

Let's see what this adds up to in terms of cash.

My CPU (taken as reference) makes about 1.5 dollars a day. A Quad-core CPU (average desktop PC CPU) would make about 0.5 dollars a day through cryptomining. Multiply that by 10K miners (dynamic swarm), it adds up to 5K dollars a day. It's a hefty sum, assuming the website really has 10K active visitors at all times.

1K active sessions would yield 500 bucks a day, 100 active sessions would net 50 bucks a day. Even 10 active sessions would be 5 dollars a day, every day. Not bad, I'd say.

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)

Re:Ad Blockers motherfucker! DO YOU GROK IT? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:34 · Score: 0

This is why I absolutely refuse to to surf without adblockers in place.
The whole online ads thing has been a shit-show since the word "go".
And they piss and moan about it, while taking ever greater liberties with computing resources THEY DO NOT OWN.
You can't even trust GOOGLE for chrissakes! And they're a browser vendor? How VERY convenient!

You wanna block me from viewing your content because I don't let you infect, destabilize, and take over my system?
Fine, I don't need to see your shit content that bad. I'll go do something ELSE.

Online advertising is a Herpes infection.

If the internet is a prostitute, sites that make you pay are like elite courtesans; sites which let you view for free are street hookers.

Yeah, no one wants to pay the price for an elite courtesan; but you're more likely to get an infection from a street hooker.

"On behalf of anonymous attackers" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:37 · Score: 0

Attackers? What?

Re:Distributing such small chunks can't be worth i by pezpunk · 2018-01-26 08:37 · Score: 1

you can definitely break the workload into small chunks that only take a few seconds.

multiply all those small hashrates by tens of thousands of pageviews, and you start pulling in quite a respectable ROI. The hard part is finding a Monero pool that doesn't ban you for making tens of thousands of tiny connections.

--
i could live a little longer in this prison

Where do you people go, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:37 · Score: 0

I have NEVER encountered a site that requires you disable adblock. I have been to maybe two sites that asked politely to turn it off, and did nothing to keep you out if you didn't.

Re: Where do you people go, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Forbes
Re:Where do you people go, anyway? by CaptainDork · 2018-01-26 09:04 · Score: 1

You have to enable AdBlock first, OK?

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Re: Where do you people go, anyway? by malikto · 2018-01-26 09:22 · Score: 1

Weird... Forbes comes through loud and clear with uBlock Origin + NanoDefender.
Re:Where do you people go, anyway? by AHuxley · 2018-01-26 09:57 · Score: 1

AC a lot of sites now ask to be whitelisted to allow their "ads" to be displayed. Extra code with that ad is now a real risk.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Where do you people go, anyway? by thewolfkin · 2018-01-26 11:11 · Score: 1

I have NEVER encountered a site that requires you disable adblock. I have been to maybe two sites that asked politely to turn it off, and did nothing to keep you out if you didn't.
There are news sites that shade articles until you white list. Just a giant unremovable popup. Some I can remove by inspecting and removing the offending div layer but some change the site itself so it's not hidden beneath an immovable layer.. it IS the immovable layer. I don't encounter those sites often to be fair.

--
Just another second banana
Re: Where do you people go, anyway? by theweatherelectric · 2018-01-26 13:44 · Score: 1

I use uBlock Origin and have Firefox's tracking protection set to always on. Forbes seems like it works for me.
Re:Where do you people go, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 13:54 · Score: 0

The networks (nbc.com, fox.com) require unblocking to stream shows.
Re:Where do you people go, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 07:03 · Score: 0

The public face of one of the "dark net" sites requires add-blockers to be turned off, and NoScript set to "allow scripts globally"
Re: Where do you people go, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-08 06:53 · Score: 0

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Distributing such small chunks can't be worth i by Albanach · 2018-01-26 08:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

At least Chrome limits background tabs to 1% of CPU and will, in future, pause javascript entirely in those pages.

Re:Distributing such small chunks can't be worth i by Greyfox · 2018-01-26 08:42 · Score: 1

Does the Javascript have to stop running when the ad completes? If it could stay up for the entire time you watch a video, that could make a mint.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Don't mind by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:42 · Score: 0

You know what? If you let me know with a disclosure you're going to do it. And by doing it you give a clean, completely ad-free page. I say let's go for it.

Yes it will use a little more power (which I pay for), but if that's the price to pay to not have to be distracted 5 times reading a page (closing popups, videos playing, etc), then it's a price I gladly pay.

Edit your posts! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 08:48 · Score: 0

It's spelled "leech," not "leach." Sorry, but I have been seeing this error a lot recently.

There are ads on YoutTube? by LostMonk · 2018-01-26 08:54 · Score: 1

I repeatedly surprised (and appalled) when I visit a favorite site on a machine other than my own (the horror!!)

I was wondering about that... by cdreimer · 2018-01-26 08:55 · Score: -1

The network at my government IT job started blocking some YouTube ads this week. If I want to listen to a video in the background, and a blocked ad came up, I had to keep hitting F5 until a legit ad or no ad appeared. PewDiePie joked earlier this week that people should watch his channel since he has no ads as YouTube no longer loves him. It's true! No ad blocking on PewDiePie's channel.

Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:03 · Score: 0

...network at my government IT job started blocking some YouTube... Work much?
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:15 · Score: 0

Have you watched his latest YouTube video? He's the douchebag admin looking forward to the government shutdown because government users will log off their computers and he can work on their systems while they're gone.
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:00 · Score: 0

There you are spamming amazon and youtube affiliate links with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!
You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.
Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.
How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????
The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!
You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!
When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!
Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!
Bonus:
Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:
The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!
So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!
Signed:
Ethell, The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:11 · Score: -1

Here is the story of creimy the mountain and his royalties!
This story was inspired by cdreimer, the parent poster.
The story of creimy the mountain explained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Listen to the audio version here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Creimy The Mountain"
includes quotes from Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1 in D major (Edward Elgar), Johnny's Theme (Paul Anka), Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder (Crawford), O Mein Papa (Paul Burkhard), Over The Rainbow (Harburg/Arlen), Star-Spangled Banner (Smith/Key), Suite: Judy Blue Eyes (Stephen Stills)
One, two, three
CREIMY the Mountain
CREIMY the Mountain
A regular picturesque
Postcardy mountain
Residing between lovely
Rosamond and Gorman
With his stunning wife ETHELL, A tree! A tree!
CREIMY was a mountain ETHELL was a tree Growing off of his shoulder
CREIMY was a mountain
(CREIMY was a mountain!)
ETHELL was a tree Growing off of his shoulder
(ETHELL was a tree growing off of his shoulder)
(hey, hey hey!)
Creimy had two big
Caves for eyes,
With a cliff for a jaw
That would go up 'n down,
And whenever it did,
He'd puff out some dust,
And hack up a boulder (HACK!) Hack up a boulder (HACK! HACK!)
Hack up a boulder (HACK! HACK! HACK!) Up a boulder
Now, one day, now I believe it was on a Tuesday, a man in a checkered double-knit suit drove up in a large El Dorado Cadillac, leased from BOB SPREEN
("Where the freeways meet in Downey!")
And he laid a HUGE, BULGING ENVELOPE right at the corner of CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN, that was right where his 'foot' was supposed to be.
Now, CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN, he couldn't believe it! All those postcards he'd posed for, for ALL OF THOSE YEARS, and finally, now, AT LAST, his Royalties!
Royalties! Royalties Royalties! Royalty check is in, honey!
Yes, CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN was RICH! Yes, and his eyeball-caves, they widened in amazement, and his jaw (which was a cliff), well it dropped thirty feet!
A bunch of dust puffed out! Rocks and boulders hacked up, (hack! hack!) crushing 'The LINCOLN'!
I gave him the money He acted real funny He hocked up a rock and It TOTALLED my car!
Oh, do you Know any trucks Might be bound for THE VALLEY?
I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar (Dear Lord)
I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar (No shit!)
I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar!
By two o'clock, when the bars are already closed down, CREIMY had broken 'THE BIG NEWS' to ETHELL. And with dust and boulders everywhere, CREIMY, choked with excitement, announced
"ETHELL, we're going on a VACATION!"
Yes, and they WERE going on a vacation! (Oh, and ETHELL, ETHELL, ETHELL, like every little woman, she of course was very excited! She creaked a little bit, and some old birds flew off of her.) CREIMY told ETHELL they were going to Yes! They were going to NEW YORK!
"ETHELL, we're going to New York!"
But first they were gonna stop in LAS VEGAS
It's off to LAS VEGAS to check out the lounges Pull a few handles,
And drink a few beers, (Oh, ETHELL!)
ETHELL, my darling, you know that I love you!
I'm glad we could have a Vacation this year! (Oh, NEET-O!)
Glad we could have a Vacation this year!
They left that night, crunchin' across the Mojave Desert their voices echoing through the canyons of your minds (POO-AAH!)
"ETHELL, wanna get a cuppa cawfee?"
(Howard Johnson's! Howard Johnson's!
Howard Johnson's! Howard Johnson's!)
"Ahhh! there's a HOWARD JOHNSONS! Wanna eat some CLAMS?"
The first noteworhty piece of real estate they destroyed was EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE
And TO THIS VERY DAY, 'Wing Nuts' and Data Reduction Clerks alike, speak in reverent whispers about that fateful night when TEST STAND #1 and THE ROCKET SLED ITSELF (
Re:I was wondering about that... by cdreimer · 2018-01-26 10:43 · Score: -1

...network at my government IT job started blocking some YouTube... Work much?
If I'm not listening to 30 teammates yammering in my headset from the all day conference call, I'm listening to YouTube videos in the background. Otherwise, the only noise I would hear in my private office is my keyboard and trackball from administrating 80K+ workstations. I'm currently listening to Bogie2988 talking about his weight loss on the H2 Podcast channel.
H3 Podcast #13 - Boogie 2988 (Steven Williams)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX1vs8Zt8Ss
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:55 · Score: -1

Exactly,
It seems like Chris is a victim here. He keeps on reading those SEO, youtube algorithm, basically get rich quick sites. He doesn't realize that he is the fish for them since they make money off him with their own scheme. Then, he wastes his time trying to implement what those sites suggest and he ends up disturbing people.
I mean, those crooks tell Chris that he has to build personal brands and he goes on the Internet and makes everything about himself public!
I believe we should bring this up at our next meeting. He might not be our only patient victim of such on-line abuse.
--
Silvia Bunge
Psychology Department
University of California, Berkeley
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 11:13 · Score: 0

There you are AGAIN spamming amazon and youtube affiliate links with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!
You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.
Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.
How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????
The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!
You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!
When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!
Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!
Bonus:
Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:
The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!
So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!
Signed:
Ethell, The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 11:24 · Score: -1

Here is the story of creimy the mountain and his royalties!
This story was inspired by cdreimer, the parent poster. The story was written by a visionary on cdreimer's birth date.
The story of creimy the mountain explained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Creimy is a typical mountain who poses for postcards, living with his wife Ethel, a tree, between the cities of Rosamund and Gorman, California. The main features on his mountainous face are two large caves, resembling eyes, and a cliff for a jaw, which moves up and down when he talks, puffing up dust and boulders.
click above link to read more, he even destroyed Edwards Air Force Base just by passing by...
Listen to the audio version here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Creimy The Mountain"
includes quotes from Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1 in D major (Edward Elgar), Johnny's Theme (Paul Anka), Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder (Crawford), O Mein Papa (Paul Burkhard), Over The Rainbow (Harburg/Arlen), Star-Spangled Banner (Smith/Key), Suite: Judy Blue Eyes (Stephen Stills)
One, two, three
CREIMY the Mountain
CREIMY the Mountain
A regular picturesque
Postcardy mountain
Residing between lovely
Rosamond and Gorman
With his stunning wife ETHELL, A tree! A tree!
CREIMY was a mountain ETHELL was a tree Growing off of his shoulder
CREIMY was a mountain
(CREIMY was a mountain!)
ETHELL was a tree Growing off of his shoulder
(ETHELL was a tree growing off of his shoulder)
(hey, hey hey!)
Creimy had two big
Caves for eyes,
With a cliff for a jaw
That would go up 'n down,
And whenever it did,
He'd puff out some dust,
And hack up a boulder (HACK!) Hack up a boulder (HACK! HACK!)
Hack up a boulder (HACK! HACK! HACK!) Up a boulder
Now, one day, now I believe it was on a Tuesday, a man in a checkered double-knit suit drove up in a large El Dorado Cadillac, leased from BOB SPREEN
("Where the freeways meet in Downey!")
And he laid a HUGE, BULGING ENVELOPE right at the corner of CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN, that was right where his 'foot' was supposed to be.
Now, CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN, he couldn't believe it! All those postcards he'd posed for, for ALL OF THOSE YEARS, and finally, now, AT LAST, his Royalties!
Royalties! Royalties Royalties! Royalty check is in, honey!
Yes, CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN was RICH! Yes, and his eyeball-caves, they widened in amazement, and his jaw (which was a cliff), well it dropped thirty feet!
A bunch of dust puffed out! Rocks and boulders hacked up, (hack! hack!) crushing 'The LINCOLN'!
I gave him the money He acted real funny He hocked up a rock and It TOTALLED my car!
Oh, do you Know any trucks Might be bound for THE VALLEY?
I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar (Dear Lord)
I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar (No shit!)
I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar!
By two o'clock, when the bars are already closed down, CREIMY had broken 'THE BIG NEWS' to ETHELL. And with dust and boulders everywhere, CREIMY, choked with excitement, announced
"ETHELL, we're going on a VACATION!"
Yes, and they WERE going on a vacation! (Oh, and ETHELL, ETHELL, ETHELL, like every little woman, she of course was very excited! She creaked a little bit, and some old birds flew off of her.) CREIMY told ETHELL they were going to Yes! They were going to NEW YORK!
"ETHELL, we're going to New York!"
But first they were gonna stop in LAS VEGAS
It's off to LAS VEGAS to check out the lounges Pull a few handles,
And drink a few beers, (Oh, ETHELL!)
ETHELL, my darling, you know that I love you!
I'm glad we could have a Vacation this year! (Oh, NEET-O!)
Glad we could have a Vacation this year!
They left that night, crunchin' across the Mojave Desert their
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 11:57 · Score: 0

Creimer's maximum weight was 400 pounds. Boogie's maximum weight was 800 pounds. A difference in perspective.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 12:52 · Score: 0

Theyre both in the fattest .01% of the population.
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 13:01 · Score: 0

creimer is a fattard!
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 14:28 · Score: 0

creimer should have told Boogie about creimer's miracle low-carb diet. creimer weighs twice a normal adult, this is also a difference in perspective.
Yet creimer didn't listen to normal adults, why would would Boogie listen to creimer?
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 15:24 · Score: 0

creimer claims to be reinventing creimer on YouTube. But so far, the new creimer is the same as the old creimer. Same boring anecdotes, same bizarre prose, same nasty attitude towards other people.
creimer is a piece of shit.
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 03:12 · Score: 0

creimer should have told Boogie about creimer's miracle low-carb diet.
Creimer's low carb diet is 150 grams of carbs per day. Boogie had surgery to reduce the volume of his stomach by 90% and can only eat 150 grams in carbs per day.

creimer weighs twice a normal adult, this is also a difference in perspective.
So is Boogie today at 394 pounds.

Yet creimer didn't listen to normal adults, why would would Boogie listen to creimer?
Because normal adults don't know shit about being overweight.
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 03:22 · Score: 0

I'm surprised that the Creimertards haven't rushed over to YouTube to shitpost their shithole comments on creimer's channel. Of course, YouTube doesn't have the same permissive TOS that Slashdot has. Creimer can delete comments and ban users from his channel.
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 03:36 · Score: 0

creimer has an easy job then, there are no comments!
creimer is an absurd human being.
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 03:44 · Score: 0

You should listen to the Boogie interview. When Boogie started his YouTube channel, he was just being himself for the first few years. One day he created his current persona as a joke, viewers responded well and his channel took off when he adopted the persona.
As for creimer, he's either being himself or a Slashdot asshole. I think the latter. When he says his name in the video, the graphic identifies him as "I.T. Closet Cleaner".
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 09:23 · Score: 0

Obviously they know something, because they weigh 150-200 pounds. If they knew nothing, they would weigh 350-400 pounds.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 10:49 · Score: 0

Why are you surprised? Creimer s videos get like 12 views apiece.
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 12:02 · Score: 0

creimer's videos are the perfect example of "the media is the message". Digital sewer fires are their own message.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 16:04 · Score: 0

That would explain why America is obese.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 18:17 · Score: 0

Sure, many Americans are obese, they creimer is still in the bottom .01%.
Anyway, it's not a lack of knowledge. It's very well understood that eating less and moving more will cause people to lose weight, just nobody wants to eat less and move more. Even most fat people realize that if they ate less they would not weight as much.
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 18:20 · Score: 0

Huh?
Re:I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 18:24 · Score: 0

But what's most distinctive about creimer's youtube channels is that he talks like a retard missing his top teeth, with a huge roll of neck-fat. That's not really something that can be pretended.
Re:I was wondering about that... by cdreimer · 2018-01-28 08:53 · Score: -1

But what's most distinctive about creimer's youtube channels is that he talks like a retard missing his top teeth, with a huge roll of neck-fat. That's not really something that can be pretended.
The retarded kids in the third grade thought it was funny to knock my front teeth out on the playground. Despite being fat and missing teeth, I never let that stopped me from enjoying life and pursuing a career in tech. What you can do is sometimes more important than how you look or speak. I've done a lot in my lifetime. YouTube is an interesting experiment on pushing the boundaries of what people say I can't do. The only people who think this a problem are retarded adults.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 10:28 · Score: 0

People say you (personally) cant make money at YouTube...and theyâ(TM)re right. What exactly have you proven wrong?
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 12:05 · Score: 0

No one makes money from YouTube. However, you can build an audience from YouTube.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 13:21 · Score: 0

"No one makes money from YouTube."
Except the people that do, Chris.
"However, you can build an audience from YouTube."
Why do you need an audience? Narcissism? Ego?
Clearly, you have had a very difficult childhood.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 13:46 · Score: 0

Except the people that do, Chris.
The dumb people rely exclusively on ad revenues. The smart people have multiple revenue streams.

Why do you need an audience?
To make money outside of YouTube.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 13:56 · Score: 0

"The dumb people rely exclusively on ad revenues."
Those dumb people are making more money than you. That's their revenue stream.
" The smart people have multiple revenue streams."
Is a stream with nothing in it still a stream? How come dumb people with YouTube channels make more money than creimer?
"To make money outside of YouTube."
I'm starting to think there's a reason people kicked your teeth out.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 14:18 · Score: 0

So how exactly do videos of fountains help creimer sell more amazon books?
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 15:36 · Score: 0

I'm starting to think there's a reason people kicked your teeth out.
Creimer got his teeth knocked out in the third grade. No child deserves that.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 16:51 · Score: 0

What Amazon books by creimer?
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 17:03 · Score: 0

He sells e-books on Amazon. Realistically when he says he is "creating a brand" to make money, that's his only avenue for earning. So I guess he thinks the handful of people who watch his videos of fountains on Youtube will become creimer fans, and will spend money to read all his books?
The whole "I am building a brand" thing remains murky to me. It's kind've like the old Slashdot meme...
1. Build a brand through fountain videos
2. ???
3. Profit!
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 17:21 · Score: 0

Creimer has no ebooks on Amazon. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about?
https://www.amazon.com/C.-D.-Reimer/e/B0040A2SEW/
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 18:09 · Score: 0

Hello anonymous person who knows the details of creimer's life and passionately defends him but is not creimer.
Creimer used to have stories on amazon. I guess he's taken them down, surely because they got terrible reviews.
It makes it even more mysterious...how does he intend to turn his name into a brand, and then ???, and then profit, if he doesn't actually sell anything?
Seriously, please explain how creimer intends to turn spamming slashdot about youtube into a youtube brand into a profit.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 18:36 · Score: 0

You made a claim that creimer sold books on Amazon. Other than the anthologies that had his short stories in them, he had no books on Amazon. When I questioned your statement, you replied that creimer had ebooks on Amazon. Another fact proven false by looking at Amazon. Now you're claiming that creimer took down the ebooks. Given that your first two statements were demonstratably false, your third statement is likely to be false.
Don't you ever get tired of lying about creimer?
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-28 18:57 · Score: 0

Hello again, person who is obviously not creimer!
Looking on Amazon, there are still links available to creimer's ebooks. For example, "Cabbage Patch Doll Fight" - the cover says "Essay ebook." Amazon says "currently not available for purchase." So obviously it was an ebook, it was available for sale on Amazon at some point, and now it is not. I hope this clears up the confusion!
All this anger about a nonsensical point and you still haven't answered the question - how do videos of fountains help creimer build a brand, and how will this "brand" help creimer make money?
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-29 01:06 · Score: 0

What makes your u think creimer's brand has anything to do with ebooks? Creimer's Slashdot and social media accounts are pointed to YouTube. The channel artwork says, "Comic Cons, Silicon Valley, Technology, A new video every Friday". The fountain video is posted under the Silicon Valley playlist.
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-29 01:38 · Score: 0

Hello creimertard who thinks every AC is creimer, You lied three times regarding creimer's e/books on Amazon. Another lie won't change that. The creimer soap opera is getting old. You need a hobby. Fucking goats and/or 14-year-old girls are pretty popular hobbies on Slashdot. That should keep you busy from spamming the rest of the Slashdot community with with your irrelevant bitterness about creimer. Thx!
Re: I was wondering about that... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-29 07:15 · Score: 0

Hello person who is not creimer but know everything about creimer, says "fucking goats", and has terrible grammar:
1) What's the lie? Amazon shows ebooks by creimer, "Cabbage Patch Doll Fight" being one. It's all very confusing.
2) How does Mr. Creimer plan to capitalize on low-viewcount Youtube videos into making money? Please be specific.

What proportion of crypto-miners are bots or ads? by quantaman · 2018-01-26 09:02 · Score: 1

I know dedicated mining operations are way more efficient, but botnets can get pretty large.

Are there any estimates on just what proportion of crypto-currencies are mined through illegitimate means?

--
I stole this Sig

Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:05 · Score: 0, Troll

If you're not willing to support my site, feel free to boycott it. However, stop stealing from me. You're not required to go to my site, but you're not welcome to violate my copyright with a derivative work in order to steal revenue from me.

Re: Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:09 · Score: 1

Fair use for personal reasons says go fuck yourself.
Re: Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:10 · Score: 1

You should share what the name and address of your site are. Plenty of people here wouldnâ(TM)t mind boycotting a site whose operator thinks their copyright overrides the fact that ad networks and the websites who employ them are shitty and should be avoided.
Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:11 · Score: 1

If you're not willing to support my site, feel free to boycott it. However, stop stealing from me. You're not required to go to my site, but you're not welcome to violate my copyright with a derivative work in order to steal revenue from me.
Could you clarify exactly how I'm violating your copyright by blocking intrusive, annoying, and sometimes malicious ads?
Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:21 · Score: 1

I'll be more than happy to boycott your site. Malvertising is the #2 cause of malware spreading, next to Trojans, and with the absolute disinterest ad companies have in policing themselves, their stuff is hostile. I'll keep my security, and your site will remain free of traffic. Sound fair?
Note: Even Forbes has caved on on the mass adblock-blocks. Adblocking is as part of computing as firewalls and AV software these days.
Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:21 · Score: 1

Bzzt! Wrong. Of course you are trolling - but not very effectively. If you don't want your precious stuff on the internet, don't put it there. But if you place files on a public web server I can sure download them. I don't have to download other files from often malicious ad servers. Nothing about copyright says anything about that. In fact, you can't copyright it because you don't even know what god damn ad is going to show up.
Re:Fuck You by ilsaloving · 2018-01-26 09:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you're not willing to support my site, feel free to boycott it. However, stop stealing from me. You're not required to go to my site, but you're not welcome to violate my copyright with a derivative work in order to steal revenue from me.
First of all, they're not violating copyright by simply downloading content.
Secondly, if you're using one of these scammy ad networks (and, to my knowledge, there isn't a single one that *isn't* scammy), then you're just going to have to accept that fact that one one gives a shit about what you want.
Third party javascript nonsense had gotten so far beyond the pale, that it behooves everyone with a computer to enable ad blocking technology, for their own personal safety. This youtube crypto thing is just one of countless examples of malicious code forced upon people. If you derive income from this bullshit, then you're complicit in this and deserve every bit of scorn anyone heaps on you.
If you don't like it, then set up a patreon account so people can be assured that you're getting paid directly without they themselves getting screwed in the process with malware.
Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:45 · Score: 0

Please do not troll.
Ads are evil and must be stopped.
Re: Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:47 · Score: 0

The problem is, I do not even care in the slightest about his/her site so why would
I want to know more about him/her and the site?
The site will be insta and perma-blocked on my computer.
I never see any pester-messages from such malicious sites.
I happily censor anti-content that never should go to my eyes and
I can only applaude all who do so too.
We need a new generation of the www anyway, one without lobby
groups such as W3C claiming how DRM is an open standard.
Re:Fuck You by thegarbz · 2018-01-26 21:06 · Score: 1

However, stop stealing from me.
So you give someone something openly, and then because they refuse to let you kick them in the nads you're claiming you're being stolen from? You're delusional.
You want to protect your content put it behind a paywall, until then we're not stealing shit, not even in the RIAA piracy is stealing way.
Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 00:23 · Score: 0

If you're not willing to support my site, feel free to boycott it. However, stop stealing from me. You're not required to go to my site, but you're not welcome to violate my copyright with a derivative work in order to steal revenue from me.
Stealing? OK, I'll bite.
Do you curate and inspect the ads? No?
Are you willing to accept the charge of vandalism for any ad that's piped through your site? No?
Are you willing to pay for repairs - very EXPEDIENT repairs - to any computer damaged by ads on your site? No?
What about data recovery services? Lost profits? Court cases? No?
Do you warn anyone about how dangerous it is to interact with your servers? Do you warn them that they are risking every byte on their computer and any computer on their network and possibly having online accounts compromised? Do you warn them that your website is a public nuisance? Do you provide any information for any insurance companies to be contacted if the ads you serve cause catastrophic harm to anyone?
No?
No to all of it?
Well then, I think we know where you stand.
And you know as well as I do that you're going to get laughed out of court for whining about "derivative works" from data you put on the public Internet, presumably on search engines, with no safeguards, no lockouts, and no warning screens. Even if you don't, Google will blacklist you in a heartbeat, if nothing more than to shield themselves from liability when you go after them for stripping out your ads. But the people whose computers were ruined, jobs were lost, and classes were failed, all because your gross negligence and wanton indifference, might have a very real shot of extracting some cash out of you.
Oh yeah, since something is coming along the lines of "WAH WAH, then you don't get my great content, WAH WAH," well, I was on the Internet in the 90s before this ad stuff, and it was a lot more free and open then. Now it's mostly social networking crap and ad-driven sites that are usually pushing some political agenda along with the malware. I'll take the former any day thank you very much.
Think I'll install another ad blocker, you haven't had anywhere near enough bandwidth "stolen.".
Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 02:10 · Score: 0

Make your ads vanilla, rather than CPU-sucking vampires, and I'll happily visit your site with ads enabled, as I usually try to do for sites that I like.
Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 10:25 · Score: 0

I think you miss the point of the Internet, the Internet is for publishing and you are the one that put up a website. I do not owe you anything nor will i ever as it is illogical to think that i am stealing something that you have hosted to the public forum. It is not my fault that you do not have enough business acumen to run a corporation that can afford the bandwidth to host a website with out resorting to ad revenue. You are the one responsible for the security of your data when you post it to the net, If you want to receive monetary compensation for your information then it is your responsibility to secure the information as well as a method of payment.
In an analogy: I can ask you for chocolate chip cookies all i want, if you give me the cookies then you can not turn around and say that i stole the cookies from you. In this case i am my computer, you are your server and the cookies are information.

Real question by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:21 · Score: 2

Why are ads even allowed to run javascript? It's one thing for double-click itself to be implemented in javascript, but why on earth do doubleclick/youtube allow the ads to include javascript? Shouldn't they just be an image or gif or video?

Re:Real question by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:40 · Score: 1

Seriously, if someone knows why ads can have javascript in them, I am legitimately curious what the reason is, not just a rhetorical question.
Re: Real question by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:00 · Score: 1

Me too. How can these ads have access to JavaScript?

Behavior blocker allows plausible deniability by tepples · 2018-01-26 09:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Anti-adblock detects failure to load ads and removes the article's text from the DOM until the user disables protection. Running a blocker for a specific behavior gives you a bit of plausible deniability and room to complain to the site's support department about misdetecting an ad blocker.

Flashblock: "I don't want to open my PC to attacks through Adobe's proprietary code. I'd look at your ads if they weren't Flash."
Ghostery, Disconnect, Firefox tracking protection: "I don't appreciate third parties stalking me around the web. I'd look at your ads if they were first-party."
NoScript: "I'd look at your ads if they were static, like those on Daring Fireball and Read the Docs."

And yet webmasters still don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 09:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

I put up with adverts in newspapers and magazines because I understand they subsidise their production costs, but they don't track me and do shit behind my back.
Same for TV
Same for radio

Yet more and more websites display 'please disable your adblocker'.

NO. It's precisely because of shit like this that I run one and I have no intention of disabling it.
You want to display adverts on your site to bring in revenue, fine I get that. But do it the old way, with simple graphics that don't run unvetted shit on your viewers machines.
You want to block me from viewing your content 'cos I'm running an adblocker ? that's cool too, there's plenty of other sites out there.

Re:Ad Blockers motherfucker! DO YOU GROK IT? by CaptainDork · 2018-01-26 10:04 · Score: 1

... browser vendor ...

Google doesn't sell a browser.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Time to ban JavaScript in Ads? by rjmx · 2018-01-26 10:14 · Score: 2

Putting JavaScript in ads causes too many problems, from drive-by malware to this (and many other things too). And it leads to annoying ads, like those pop-ups that never leave your field of view.

Yes, yes, I know it's because advertisers want to draw attention to their product. However, I suspect that many people would object less to ads if they weren't so annoying: compare to advertisements in (print) newspapers, who seem to have got along just fine without ads in -- what? -- several centuries so far?

If we banned JavaScript in ads, malware authors would have a lot more difficult task pushing their crap.

(Have to admit: only half-serious here, but still ...)

Re:Time to ban JavaScript in Ads? by Fly+Swatter · 2018-01-26 10:44 · Score: 2

All third party javascript should be click-to-play at this point.
Re:Time to ban JavaScript in Ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 13:28 · Score: 0

All third party javascript should be click-to-play at this point.
If not that then cryptographically signed by the web site owner it plays on, with them being held responsible for any damages....
It will never happen, but I can dream..
I used to think we had web standards and such so we would not need to make web pages into computer programs...

Pi-hole® by gdonald · 2018-01-26 10:15 · Score: 2

Defeat ads via DNS before involving your browser: https://pi-hole.net/ I've been using it for a few months now. Knowing my TVs are no longer sending logs to Samsung is very gratifying. I discovered a forgotten Jenkins install that was hitting Github every 5 minutes.. oops :( I've only had to white-list two URLs for my kid so far.

creimer spam alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:20 · Score: -1

creimer spam alert!

Don't click on his homepage link! creimer is trying to get you to subscribe automatically to his youtube channel and make money off you!

Yes, believe it or not, creimer owns all the above sock puppet accounts. It is a mystery why Slashdot management tolerates it!

creimer wrote:

I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the number ? to move cdreimer's karma from neutral to excellent without ever being exposed to the capricious mods. Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahahaha!

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Creimy is posting more than 2 posts a day. Hurry! mod down otherwise /. will go to hell again!

Note: you can mod down even if already at -1 to lower karma and to prevent lost /. users to accidentally mod up.

creimer wrote:

All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. Won't be long before you start making "coffee money" each month.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

C.D. Reimer is a renowned Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."

But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!

Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses
And all the king's men
Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
Together again.

Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

With "Vice President Pence Vowing US Astronauts Will Return To the Moon", we are sure they will need miracle workers up there, here is what it would look like. Note that Creimy takes care of bringing a lot of food to the moon as depicted below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Creimy's real pictures:
Before the sex change:
https://ibb.co/cc7Ddw
After the sex change:
https://ibb.co/gVad65

Creimy's "enterprise-level" chair, he talks about it all the time on slashdot:

Re:This crap needs to be regulated by the governme by freeze128 · 2018-01-26 10:27 · Score: 1

That's OK. I'll just filter the advertisements myself on my end.

Re: Distributing such small chunks can't be worth by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:31 · Score: 0

#3 is free is kind of short sighted.
Cuz thousands of people and me are gonna turn Adblock back on for YouTube.
Is that a good enough reason?

I got a good reason to just rip YouTube videos now, totally bypassing ads, clicks, and views.

Is that a good enough reason?

Most of what I watch in YouTube was on Twitch first anyways.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2018-01-26 10:34 · Score: -1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Ad Blockers motherfucker! DO YOU GROK IT? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 10:38 · Score: 0

Are you sure about that?

Seems odd so many apps(like Avast! which bugs you to install chrome every update) would bundle a Chrome installer for free.

Third party content is a nightmare for users by Fly+Swatter · 2018-01-26 10:40 · Score: 2

https is such a falsehood. Sure the connection between you and one site may be secure, and you may actually trust it. But what about all those third party trackers and ad servers that load into the same page? Yes I am oversimplifying and https is about the connection and not the server's security - but as soon as a third party content is loaded shouldn't the underlying https connection become tainted in a way that it has something like one of those big red Xs on it for https+non-https mixed content? Maybe a middle finger emoji to the end user.

I wish for a day whereby disabling loading of third party content is enabled by default - and websites still work.

If you don't use an ad blocker by now, or even better something like umatrix extension - please add one to your favorite browser. (umatrix is from same guy as ublock origin, and sure it has a learning curve but we are supposed to be nerds reading this, and be amazed at all the third party junk on your favorite websites).

Re:Third party content is a nightmare for users by jecowa · 2018-01-26 13:17 · Score: 1

I'd like JavaScript to start heading the way of Flash and eventually be disabled by default in web browsers. We'd probably need something to replace it first, though â" something that doesn't have quite the power that JavaScript has. My old laptop runs a lot cooler after installing NoScript and only enabling scripts for domains as-needed.

--
my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such

Re: Ad Blockers motherfucker! DO YOU GROK IT? by CaptainDork · 2018-01-26 10:51 · Score: 1

Stick with it, OK?

You'll get it after you've been on the Internet a while.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Not visiting the site IS the choice. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 11:08 · Score: 0

Not visiting the site IS the choice.

Re: Not visiting the site IS the choice. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 16:16 · Score: 0

They mean the choice should be made explicit.

Browser bug: each browser should restrict usage by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 11:27 · Score: 0

The idea that an web site can consume all of your resources is a bug. There is a reason active X was a bad idea. Today our browsers have enabled similar circumstances where they can take control over the machine without bounds. In a properly designed system the browser nor a particular app should have access to any and all resources on a system. Fortunately some restrictions do exist in some cases. However user adjustments in this particular case are an issue. The user should be put in control of a sites resource usage to hinder any site from gaining system control or consuming in excess of what the end-user considers reasonable. You should own your own computer and not someone else. Also another reason I'm not a fan of javascript or WebASM.

Re: Ad Blockers motherfucker! DO YOU GROK IT? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 11:46 · Score: 0

Nope, you act like I never tried Chrome. Firefox runs better on my computer.
Don't throw benchmarks at me from someone else's computer, they're irrelevant to me.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2018-01-26 11:49 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why do ads include java scripts? by MobyDisk · 2018-01-26 11:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

I understand why an ad network like Yahoo or Doubleclick might use javascripts. But why would the individual advertiser need a custom javascript? Just provide a PNG or JPG or MP4 and be done with it. The idea that the ad networks permit arbitrary code in the ad is utterly ridiculous.

Re:Why do ads include java scripts? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 22:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

(Posting as AC for reasons...)
The short answer is analytics. We need the JS in order to keep track of things such as how long you looked at the ad, whether you moused over it (or even moused close to it), etc. Measuring user interaction with an ad is critical to determining if an ad is effect. Or for that matter determining if a site is scamming us.
We also use JS to do deeper browser fingerprinting, to try to better identify a viewer for demographics purposes (did this go to a 28yo black female, a 50yo white male, etc). The ad networks themselves supply some of this information, but they don't supply enough of it.
There's also some need on the ad delivery side to use JS to optimize an ad for a client, but that's not really my department.
Re:Why do ads include java scripts? by MobyDisk · 2018-01-27 05:23 · Score: 1

That was informative but didn't really answer the crux of my question, and perhaps it is my way of asking it that is the problem. If I elaborate can you answer in more depth? Something is fundamentally wrong here:
Who in the chain is writing and delivering the JavaScript? Suppose I go to goodsite.com, and I see an ad delivered by Google's ad delivery division, for Joe's Lemonade? If goodsite.com wrote the script, that seems okay. If Google wrote the Javascript, that's fine too because I assume goodsite.com has vetted Google as a safe advertiser. But if Joe's Lemonade is providing the JavaScript, then something really stupid is happening here.
What seems to be happening is that I go to goodsite.com, and refresh 25 times, and I get 25 ads, with 25 different java scripts. That doesn't make sense. All the stuff you described about what they are doing with the script seems like what Google would do, not what Joe's Lemonade would do. I see no reason that each ad has different javascript. It would be really hard to vet the JavaScript inside each ad. That seems to be the problem here. It would be absolutely idiotic to run a web site where an unknown 3rd-party can add javascript into your site. No rational developer would do that. So... what is going on here? Who is writing these malicious scripts and how do they get into the chain? I am very confused.
Re:Why do ads include java scripts? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 07:38 · Score: 0

(Posting as AC for reasons...)
The short answer is analytics. We need the JS in order to keep track of things such as how long you looked at the ad, whether you moused over it (or even moused close to it), etc. Measuring user interaction with an ad is critical to determining if an ad is effect. Or for that matter determining if a site is scamming us.
We also use JS to do deeper browser fingerprinting, to try to better identify a viewer for demographics purposes (did this go to a 28yo black female, a 50yo white male, etc). The ad networks themselves supply some of this information, but they don't supply enough of it.
There's also some need on the ad delivery side to use JS to optimize an ad for a client, but that's not really my department.
Changing your advertising and selling behavior between a 28yo black female and a 50yo white male is textbook discrimination.
Re:Why do ads include java scripts? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 09:58 · Score: 0

Not really...
A 28 y.o. black female will certainly want to see ads/vouchers for KFC or Popeyes, whilst a 50 y.o. white male would certainly prefer to see ads/vouchers for more higher end dining.
A 28 y.o. black female would want to see ads for hair products like Afro Sheen or accessories that will give her more weave than a dog in traffic, whilst a 50 y.o. white male would prefer seeing ads for a gentleman's barber.
Re:Why do ads include java scripts? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 10:35 · Score: 0

Ok, that makes perfect sense as to why an advertiser (Joe's Lemonade) wants to serve up custom javascript in their ad (despite the fact that many of us don't like what they are doing), but doesn't at all excuse Google for allowing ads to be served with javascript. Google is absolutely the point in the chain that should be held accountable (lawsuits?) for allowing arbitrary javascript in ads that it serves, compromising the security of every website that uses google ads. They are knowingly and intentionally allowing this security hole and it appears that the only realistic motive is ad revenue from advertisers who want to embed javascript to do whatever the heck they want at the expense of the websites and their viewers. I was literally days away from adding google ads to my websites, but will look into the brave ad network instead. Brave appears to be much more concerned about both users and website owners.
Re:Why do ads include java scripts? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 23:13 · Score: 0

(Original AC here)

Who in the chain is writing and delivering the JavaScript?
We, the advertiser (or rather the firm hired to develop the campaign) supply the bulk of JS. It is delivered as part of our ad package.
Technically it would be more accurate to think of JS as Russian nesting dolls. Each layer (Google, ad network, advertiser) includes their own JS for tracking and such. But the JS that the article is concerned with is specifically the advertiser's JS.
As for why we do it, as I mentioned before it's so we have our own analytics data, above and beyond what the ad networks provide. Their data isn't good enough and we don't trust them anyhow. Data is life, and the more of it can acquire the better we can make our ads perform. Conversely, if we didn't have it then our ads would underperform and we would funnel the ad dollars into something else.
Extremely detailed analytics is the only thing that makes web advertising worth it. Otherwise you're pissing money into the wind, and it's Google who's catching it all.
Re:Why do ads include java scripts? by MobyDisk · 2018-01-29 03:00 · Score: 1

Thanks for the following-up!

Re: Ad Blockers motherfucker! DO YOU GROK IT? by CaptainDork · 2018-01-26 15:17 · Score: 1

But you paid for Chrome, right?

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Thanks a lot mister creimer! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 17:33 · Score: 0

Thanks a lot mister creimer!

Album sales are up due to you!

--
Moon Unit Zappa

Typical markettibg strategy. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 17:41 · Score: 0

Typical marketing strategy that pays off, I have to admit.

Great job Moon Unit!

we need html6 without crossdomain content by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-26 23:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

1 why should there be content from domains not in the adress bar? (you dont expect there to be pepsi inside a can of coca cola!)
2 site designers need to keep content on their own site! (if you dont own the content, link to it, dont steal it)
3 100+ connections to load a single site is unacceptable! (and not cool to other users on public wifi)
4 ssl/tls is worthless with crossdomain content! (and please support ipsec/dane certificates to stop the certificate marfia)
5 all audio/videos should be click to play! (possible crossdomain, but need to be clicked just like any other links)
6 crossdomain cookies, are just another name for tracking cookies! (you dont need cookies to track users on you own site!)
7 external javascript libraries, are just as bad as windows dll hell and linux dependency nightmare. (just compile them into you page)
8 for webapps you need to install/give premission, for them to use site x. (not have a stupid allow header on site x!)
9 adsence/analytics is the real big brother wathing you. (and he is not alone..)
but its not happening as long as the browser makers are in the pockets of the ad/spam supliers.

Liability by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 03:40 · Score: 0

A person hosting a website demands users disable adblocking and enable scripts to view their websites because they feel that viewing it without seeing their ads is theft.

So answer me this: are you, as the owner of said website, going to take responsibility--either personally or under your company name--for the expenses incurred WHEN, not if, I get a virus from the ads on your site? At a low estimate, call it $50 to service a machine to remove a virus. Are you going to give me $50 to remove the viruses that viewing your website unprotected--and make no mistake, adblock and noscript ARE need-to-have browser protection now--has left on my computer and which antivirus will do nothing for?

No? Didn't think so.

But suppose, for argument's sake, you ARE willing to accept liability for your actions. What if I were to make a machine with a clean copy of windows 10 and view your site in Edge, or windows 7 and IE, using a bot to make sure I reload your site a few dozen times an hour?
Every day I'll compile a list of times my computer was infected and I had to reimage it and I'll submit these tickets to you weekly. It'll come out to about $50/hour, every hour of every day.
THEN would you still be willing to accept responsibility for your actions, or would you tell me to fuck off and that it was my responsibility to protect myself. And would you still tell me to fuck off and disable my adblocking when viewing your site despite having seen the consequences?

Easy to stop it by using hosts files by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-27 06:46 · Score: 0

0.0.0.0 doubleclick1.xyz
0.0.0.0 doubleclick2.xyz
0.0.0.0 doubleclick3.xyz
0.0.0.0 doubleclick4.xyz
0.0.0.0 doubleclick5.xyz

* SOURCE: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/coinhive-cryptojacker-deployed-on-youtube-via-google-ads/

APK

P.S.=> For more protection vs. more threats than just this one (& more speed too) accept NO substitute for APK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

Slashdot Mirror

Now Even YouTube Serves Ads With CPU-draining Cryptocurrency Miners (arstechnica.com)

187 comments