Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Salon Magazine Mines Monero On Your Computer If You Use an Ad Blocker (bbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the crypto-cash dept.

dryriver shares a report from BBC: News organizations have tried many novel ways to make readers pay -- but this idea is possibly the most audacious yet. If a reader chooses to block its advertising, U.S. publication Salon will use that person's computer to mine for Monero, a cryptocurrency similar to Bitcoin. Creating new tokens of a cryptocurrency typically requires complex calculations that use up a lot of computing power. Salon told readers: "We intend to use a small percentage of your spare processing power to contribute to the advancement of technological discovery, evolution and innovation." The site is making use of CoinHive, a controversial mining tool that was recently used in an attack involving government websites in the UK, U.S. and elsewhere. However, unlike that incident, where hackers took control of visitors' computers to mine cryptocurrency, Salon notifies users and requires them to agree before the tool begins mining.

14 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. And they prove it by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People use adblockers because they have no trust in websites to not abuse their computers, eg. by installation of malware through the served ads. Websites so far have refused any kind of responsibility for what happens to your computer as a direct result if visiting them without an adblocker installed.

    So now Salon goes out of their way to use malware if you DO have an adblocker installed. You have to ask yourself what kind of shit is in their ads if that's their mentality. If they can get away with making a bit of money off a portion of their visitors, why not make it off ALL their visitors, adblocker or no?

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:And they prove it by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People use adblockers because they have no trust in websites to not abuse their computers, eg. by installation of malware through the served ads. Websites so far have refused any kind of responsibility for what happens to your computer as a direct result if visiting them without an adblocker installed.

      This.

      Its gotten so bad that a script blocker like Ghostery is now also a requirement.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:And they prove it by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. The easiest way to stanch this problem is to never surf to Salon.com. Problem solved.

      When wired.com did their adblocker wall, I kissed them goodbye, and found out how my day improved.

      I'll subscribe to content that I really need. But the madness and security danger poised by ads, not to mention their often dubious origin motivates me to use Privacy Badger and that plus no-script in another browser.

      Publishers can tell me I suck. Fine. I'll go elsewhere. Publishing on the web has a lot of flawed models, and Salon.com just found another one.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:And they prove it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Advertising is about selling you shit you don't need. Selling you shit you do need is easy, invasive advertising is only required to make you buy stuff you could live happily without.

      The primary mechanism for making you buy shit you don't need is psychological abuse. Adverts make you feel inadequate because you don't own that thing. They try to make you measure your worth by the amount of worthless shit you own.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:And they prove it by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The standard for HTML was developed as a way for scientists to communicate with each other, and against a background of Usenet norms which were hostile to advertising. I don't think it's really fair to blame Berners Lee for failing to foresee what the WWW would become.

    5. Re:And they prove it by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep.

      One or two static and unobtrusive ads at any given time that are guaranteed clean and the adblockers go away.

      Indeed. I'm fine with a few ads. I'm not fine with modal ads, or interstitial ads, ads that dance around the page, ads that play videos or make sound.

      Simple text ads that are tastefully done is fine. Salon's technique is going to make me blacklist Salon.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  2. Virtue signalling stops where money begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suddenly far-left Salon isn't so concerned about climate change, the environment or that currencies like Bitcoin "enable alt-right extremists".

    1. Re:Virtue signalling stops where money begins by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Suddenly far-left Salon isn't so concerned about climate change, the environment or that currencies like Bitcoin "enable alt-right extremists".

      Greed is endemic across all political spectra.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Virtue signalling stops where money begins by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But let's be honest here - only one side rides a moral high-horse denying that greed is a motivation.

      --
      -Styopa
  3. Re:uBlock Origin by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know that when you make an ad-hominem attack on a comedian who says unkind things about Mr. Trump you are basically signalling to the world that you've lost the argument and this is all you have left.

    Oliver's new season started last night. Haven't seen it yet but I'm guessing you don't have any specific criticisms of its content.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re: Wannabet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Amen, I am actually cool with this practice. I have always been in favour of some kind of micropayment for enjoying commercially produced content. I am just offended by advertising.
    I always wanted to pay something like $0.02 per page. Paying about 1X10E-4 or E-5 Watt-hour instead sounds like a great compromise.

  5. Re:uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He's a fucking comedian.
    This is like writing an article about how insightful Dave Chapelle is on transgenderism.
    I love his comedy, and I even agree with his stance on the issue, but he's still just a fucking comedian.
    This is especially true for people like Oliver, because he makes all his political points interspersed with jokes, and gets all riled up.
    Then when you call him out on some bullshit it's all "I'm just a fucking comedian why are you acting like I have to live up to the same standard as the news".
    Yeah, no. Fuck that.

  6. We shouldn't be worried... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the Ad agencies who should be worried.

    I wouldn't mind Salon and some other news agencies using my computers to mine for e-coins. Essentially it's a micropayment system in lieu of seeing ads.

    If this catches on, Salon may just rid of ads completely and use crypto-mining to generate money.

    The plus side of this is that the more you read the site, the more you pay. If you just go to them because of click-bait, you won't stay on their pages long and end up not generating a lot of money for them.

    Sounds like a win situation for the newspaper (they make money) and the reader (no ads). The Ad agencies lose out. But who cares about them?

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  7. Re: Wannabet! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CoinHive defaults to using 40% or less of your CPU.

    How is that possible? CoinHive is JavaScript. JavaScript runs in a sandbox, and does not have access to CPU usage info.