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

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.

Comments

And they prove it

[Calydor]

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?

Re:And they prove it

[hazardPPP]

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?

Re:And they prove it

[Kokuyo]

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?

Re:And they prove it

[JaredOfEuropa]

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...

Re:And they prove it

[postbigbang]

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.

Re:And they prove it

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Virtue signalling stops where money begins

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Wannabet!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Wannabet!

[fisted]

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

Re: Bad business models are not my problem

[c6gunner]

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.

Re:Not money. PROFIT.

[Anonymous Coward]

(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/