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.

46 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 hazardPPP · · Score: 5, Informative

      People use adblockers because they have no trust in websites to not abuse their computers, eg. by installation of malware through the served ads.

      That's part of it for sure. However, it's not just that.

      People (myself included) also use adblockers because they don't want a page they are reading plastered with annoying ads that jump at you every second. It's annoying. You know what I do when a website (usually some online publication, e.g. newspaper or magazine) tells me "you've got an ad blocker installed, please whitelist us to continue reading"? In 99% of the cases, I just leave that website. Most of the stuff I click just isn't THAT interesting to be worth being blasted by ads.

      Which brings us to another point. These sites want to "make readers pay". The things is - readers don't want to pay for most of this content. They're happy to read it if it's free, but if it's not - they can live without it. Not wanting to pay includes not just not wanting to pay with their money - but also with their attention (ads blasting) and computing power (cryptocurrency mining). There's very little content out there that any particular reader is actually willing to pay for.

      How will the poor websites fund themselves you ask? Well, it's their effin' problem that the advertising became way too aggressive and that the web became dominated at one point with websites which are 90% ads and 10% content. Not to mention all the malware and tracking and all of the other crap being "served" via the ads. Had the ads been less aggressive, ad blockers would not have proliferated. Even offline we are inundated with advertising, it goes way beyond just the businesses which fund themselves primarily via ads (e.g. free to air TV and in general media outlets), it looks like everyone is trying to make an extra buck by selling some space for an ad. Is it a wonder that people then massively say well screw you, I'm blocking this?

    2. Re:And they prove it by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      News outlets have just no grasp of the reality of internet existing.

      Seriously, I wanted to have some better news sources than the free papers they keep on train stations. So I paid over 200 bucks for a subscription, digital mind you, to Neue Zuercher Zeitung.

      They still showed me ads and paid content even when logged in. My subscription has now run out. I see no difference in the content.

      I mean what the hell?

    3. Re:And they prove it by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I love how advertising agencies talk about "improving the reader experience" and "serve ads that are relevant to you", yet the result inavriably seems to be ads that are harder to ignore and annoy the reader to the point where they will leave the site.

      Dear advertisers: if you are serious about improving the reader experience, think about how your ad impresses on a reader who is not interested in whatever it is you're selling. Good ads provide info to people who are interested in your products, entice people who might be interested, and are easily ignored by people who have no interest. Of course many advertisers seem to think that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and believe that the population of people who are not and will never be interested in the product is zero. The result of that thinking is the immense popularity of ad blockers, and declining readership of sites who successfully lock out people using such blockers. If people go out of their way to avoid looking at your ad, that should be telling you something...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. Re:And they prove it by Cederic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Advertising is about selling you shit you don't need. Selling you shit you do need is easy

      I need toilet paper. Advertising has raised my awareness of the brands available and the attributes of their product. It does influence my purchasing decision, thus advertising is helping sell something I do need, disproving your first point.

      So someone trying to sell me shit that I need without advertising is not succeeding, thus disproving your second point.

      Marketing is not sales.

    10. Re:And they prove it by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I used to subscribe to the paper version of Wired and let my subscription lapse. They sent me to a collection agency for failure to renew a $12 subscription! How is not renewing a subscription the same as buying something and not paying for it?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    11. Re:And they prove it by houghi · · Score: 2

      I use adblockers because I can. If it where possible I would use them elsewhere as well. The fact that that would mean many service would not be "free (as in beer)" or that the companies will not make money is not my problem. There is no reason for me to defend their business model.

      Or to say it in other words:

      People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

      You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

      Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

      You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs.

      â" Banksy

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:And they prove it by tepples · · Score: 2

      I need toilet paper. Advertising has raised my awareness of the brands available and the attributes of their product.

      So would a nonprofit product tester like Consumer Reports.

    13. Re:And they prove it by Bradac_55 · · Score: 2

      That's a funny comment (true but funny) as I look up to the top right corner of my browser while reading this statement.

      uBlock Origin is blocking 15
      Ghostery is blocking 8
      HTTPS Everywhere is blocking 12

      on SLASHDOT .... I just tossed this page into Edge and good lord the ads.

    14. Re:And they prove it by zieroh · · Score: 2

      You have to ask yourself what kind of shit is in their ads if that's their mentality.

      I actually turned off ad blocking on Salon recently, and the ads made the site unreadable. Constant DOM changes that jumped the text up and down every few seconds made for a very unpleasant experience, to the point of unusable. Also, just the ads caused my CPU cycles to jump and set my fans spinning, and the page eventually consumed so much memory that my browser halted it.

      So if it's the choice between monero-mining-malware or ad-malware spinning wildly out of control, I guess we should be seeing Salon in a death spiral soon.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    15. Re:And they prove it by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ADblockers do not block ads per se. They block scipts and elements of web pages. So Salon wants to be a dick, the adblockers will find the script and block it, good luck the morons at Salon. Can't run shit on a browser that is properly configured for example by https://noscript.net/ runs fine on https://www.waterfoxproject.or... (if you hate quantum and preferred the previous layouts easiest way to go.), excluding of course any browser out of M$, they control it and make no mistake and it will serve compulsory M$ ads, I waiting for the boot up ad, you now ad kicks in at boot and you have to interact with the add at the appropriate points for the next 10 minutes else the computer will complete the boot.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  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. Yet another terrible financial model by shanen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Crypto-currency is just a gambling scam. I certainly regard it as a good reason to avoid any website, and they didn't need the bad press.

    So let me focus on the solution I keep advocating: SELL ME THE SOLUTIONS. I'm sick and tired of all the problems. I want to do something to help SOLVE the problems.

    The articles or videos about various problems should be followed by links to projects related to solutions for those problems. The journalism part could be supported directly with internal projects, or via tithes on the external projects.

    AtAJG, DAUPR.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  4. I use a privacy plugin, not an ad-blocker by Misagon · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't mind ads but I mind my privacy.

    I use EFF's Privacy Badger plugin, which automatically blocks web sites that it has detected to track me.
    Ads on web sites that respect users' privacy are still visible.
    If their web site uses ad-networks that tracks visitors and those ads are blocked as a result then that is the site owner's fault -- and the site deserves to get those ads blocked!

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:I use a privacy plugin, not an ad-blocker by mentil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also if you use Firefox, turn first-party cookie isolation on (about:config->privacy.firstparty.isolate)
      I've noticed no problems on any of the sites I use.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  5. uBlock Origin by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you go to Salon with uBlock Origin in Medium Mode - third party scripts and frames are blocked - it turns out it loads fine.

    And then you see articles like this on the front page and remember why you deleted your bookmark to Salon about ten years ago

    https://www.salon.com/2018/02/18/john-oliver-gives-us-six-lessons-on-how-to-report-on-trump/

    A listicle based on failed Brit comedian and CURRENT YEAR man, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC saying things like 'late-night comedians have become the nation's front-running truth tellers'. Yeah, I think I'll pass. If he's not going to cry like Jimmy Kimmel, how do I know he's sincere?

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. 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
    2. 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.

    3. Re:uBlock Origin by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      "Failed?" John Oliver has a hit TV show that's renewed at least through 2020, a multimillion dollar salary, multiple Emmys and WGA awards, and at least one Peabody to his name. If that's your "failure" in your mind then, as Fezzik, would say, I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Also, your assertion that HBO is a subsidiary of DNC is demonstrably untrue. They are, in (a quite easily-verifiable) fact, a subsidiary of Time Warner which is, in turn, a publicly traded corporation and now a subsidiary of anything (Though that would change if the AT&T acquisition goes through.). But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of whatever your rant is about.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
  6. Unable teo recreate... by angsthaas+anonymous · · Score: 2

    When visiting the salon.com site; no anti-adblock warning appears, no cpu crypto-mining starts on my machine, no articles are inaccessible. Ublock Orgin in Hard mode with no site exceptions enabled. Nothing to see here

  7. 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.

  8. This is sort of fair actually. by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Go ahead, mine something on my box. If the code is sandboxed - as should be the case with JS - and it doesn't slow to a grinding halt, I'm actually ok with that. But don't show me you annoying ads!

    In fact, make it the default! And give me the option to choose ads over mining. That would actually be a huge improvement IMHO. No joke.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:This is sort of fair actually. by Solandri · · Score: 2

      You're actually paying for it via a slightly elevated electric bill, making it an extremely inefficient way to transfer money.

      You -> electric company -> heat generated on your computer -> bitcoin -> website -> bitcoin exchange -> cash to website

      If you're ok with paying for the website you're visiting, just cut out everything in the middle, save your computer some wear and tear, and prevent a little bit of global warming by simply transferring money:

      You -> website

  9. Re: Wannabet! by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    Ditto

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  10. Re: Wannabet! by fisted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    WHAT? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE NOISE OF MY CPU, CASE AND PSU FANS!

    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    BUT I MEAN TO BE YELLING

    --
    CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
  11. Re:Bad business models are not my problem by Time_Ngler · · Score: 4, Informative

    > If they want to put up an offer when the web page loads that's fine. I can take the offer or leave it. (and I assure you I will leave it) But if they simply go ahead and start trying to mine bitcoin on my computer without asking me first, now we have a fight.

    From the Fucking Summary:

    > 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.

  12. It's the tracking that is the problem by sjbe · · Score: 2

    I don't mind seeing advertising that pays for the content I browse

    I do because I have yet to find an advertiser that can provide me adequate assurances that data about me isn't being tracked and sold. I *might* be willing to live with some non-obtrusive ads if I could be sure of and control what was done with the data gathered. But until I control that process (which I have no illusions will ever happen) the ads will remain blocked and I will fight tracking with every resource at my disposal. If that means I have access to less content then so be it. Unlike you I actually value my privacy.

    I installed an adblocker because to much of the above "bad" ads were interrupting browse, and now I've uninstalled it because every site I encounter requires me to 'disable adblock before proceeding'.

    Either you had the wrong ad blocker or you are browsing sites I never go to. I almost never see ad-blocker notices and sites that refuse to work with one enabled I deem to be ones I didn't need to go to anyway. Seriously it just isn't a problem. Even on my mobile devices.

  13. Re: Bad business models are not my problem by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the length of his comment it's pretty coast that he's a busy man who doesn't have time to read more than the headline. Clearly this whole "summary" thing is a failed business model.

  14. Re: What does it do by ruir · · Score: 2

    I am using whitelisting with a surprising degree of success with some sites using more aggressive tactics of adverting couple with domain rotation of secondary addresses to avoid blacklisting tactics...

  15. Future of Website Funding by mentil · · Score: 2

    I predict that a few years from now, web browsers will have crytocurrency handling as a built-in feature. There will be wallets for various cryptocurrencies, and a mechanism for this to interact with websites, with a browser-controlled UI controlling this. The browser will also have a 'mining mode' that users can toggle (or set to activate automatically when idle) which slowly fills up their wallet of choice. Go to a news website or whatever, and they ask for a microtransaction in whatever denomination, it comes from your wallet (if you accept the UI prompt). You can configure in the browser that site X can deduct amounts of up to Y per page, with a notification each time this happens. This'll be HUGE for porn sites, particularly with cryptocurrencies where encrypted blockchains are used.

    Wallet empty and you need some cryptocoins NOW? Handy link to a broker site with a referrer fee to the browser maker. The 'mining mode' will utilize your GPU or whatever, if available. You can configure it to only use up to X% of your CPU/GPU. Of course, the preferred cryptocoins will be those with fast transaction times and low fees, being mine-able might help, and encrypted blockchain will be preferable for some sites.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Future of Website Funding by stooo · · Score: 2

      >> I predict that a few years from now, web browsers will have crytocurrency handling as a built-in feature
      Browsers are already slow enough.
      If you want to go worse, up to you, but probably most people will not go to browsers with incorporated hooks for malware.

      --
      aaaaaaa
  16. Re:Not money. PROFIT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    (In this case, you accuse Salon of saying "alt-right extremists"

    I'm not accusing. I'm quoting: https://www.salon.com/2017/12/27/is-bitcoin-enabling-alt-right-extremists/

  17. Re:Bad business models are not my problem by tsqr · · Score: 2

    That's fine but I don't think you've done the math on the cost per page if you think $0.02/page is reasonable. For me that could easily top $50/day at that sort of price point.

    OK, let's do some math. $50 at $0.02/page is 2500 pages. That's about 2 minutes/page if you browse for 20 hours/day with no breaks. Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

  18. Re:Bad business models are not my problem by mellon · · Score: 2

    But you pay to see it, not to read it. So if it's $0.02/page times the number of pages you visit in a day, are you still okay with it?

  19. I'm Not Opposed To This Model by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

    Beats the Hell out of paid advertising, intrusive marketing/data-capture, paid-for-articles, etc. There is some value in journalism, and I'd rank that value about equal to whatever they can manage to mine in cryptocoins in the span it takes me to read and close the page - if they make really long enthralling articles they get more - if they make shitty little summaries or 20-page breakdowns showing a paragraph of text each which annoy the fuck out of me their miner has to start reprocessing and gets nothing done. This is arguably the best possible revenue model for the internet as a whole to move toward.

  20. Re: Wannabet! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those that don't like this policy, there are Coin-Hive blockers.

    Soon, instead of complaining about your ad-blocker, media sites will complain about your mining-blocker.

  21. 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.
  22. 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.

  23. CNN by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Is there a way to check this? I'm pretty sure CNN, or one of their advertisers, is up to some funny business as the site is slow and eventually crashes its tab of Chrome when just left open.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.