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.

22 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 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
    9. 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. 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
  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. 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
  6. 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!
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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/

  10. 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.

  11. 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.