TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Forbes asked readers to turn off adblockers then immediately served them malware

365 点作者 temp超过 9 年前

21 条评论

Animats超过 9 年前
Forbes has come a long way down since the days of Malcolm Forbes, Sr. He did many exposes of bad business practices. Forbes is now owned by Integrated Whale Media Investments of Hong Kong.<p>If you&#x27;re not that familiar with how ad serving works today, watch this IAB video.[1] Note how the online auction process works. After information about the user (location, demographics, income level, previous purchases, what user has looked at) has been obtained from a data provider, that info is submitted to an ad exchange. Advertisers then have an opportunity to bid for placing an ad in that space, and have 10ms to bid.<p>But sometimes, no advertiser bids in that round. The ad space is now &quot;remnant space&quot; - ad space where all the big advertisers declined to buy. Remnant space is very cheap, maybe 5% of premium space. The first ad exchange goes out to a second lower-tier ad exchange, where the cycle repeats, at a lower price point. That&#x27;s where junky ads and malware get inserted. Remnant-space sellers include Rubicon, PubMatic, and AdMeld (now owned by Google).<p>Many publishers are reluctant to set a minimum price and leave ad space unsold. Rather than fill unsold space with some non-ad content, or a house ad (Forbes running an ad for some other Forbes publication), they sell the space to one of those bottom-feeder services. This hurts their reputation and readership, and probably isn&#x27;t worth the small revenue it generates.<p>Forbes covered the issue of ad exchange trust in 2014.[2] Their ad people need to read their own magazine.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=-Glgi9RRuJs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=-Glgi9RRuJs</a> [2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;roberthof&#x2F;2014&#x2F;12&#x2F;10&#x2F;can-you-trust-your-ad-exchange-new-index-may-provide-the-answer&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;roberthof&#x2F;2014&#x2F;12&#x2F;10&#x2F;can-you-tru...</a>
评论 #10878532 未加载
themartorana超过 9 年前
Being that I make money from serving ads, I come at this a bit differently. In a lot of markets, it&#x27;s one of the most passive ways to make money, but to be sure, the creepiness factor has been advertisers&#x27; hubris-induced-downfall.<p>In any case, I haven&#x27;t seen anyone here mention the ad networks themselves. Every once and a while we would get a complaint about a bad ad - it wouldn&#x27;t dismiss, etc. Over time, we whittled down our network list to ad networks that strictly test and vet the ads they serve, no matter how much time that takes.<p>The networks blaming a &quot;rogue advertiser&quot; means they&#x27;re not even passing ads on their network through automated malware detection software, and so they have responsibility here.<p>Creepiness factor aside, the explosion of networks is a problem, because so very few are actually providing more than a basic service. We really should be holding networks responsible for their ads.<p>We did, and we haven&#x27;t had a complaint for a very long time.<p>Edit: this doesn&#x27;t absolve Forbes, especially if they did nothing to correct the problem.<p>Edit 2: by &quot;we should hold the networks responsible&quot; I mean &quot;we the publishers&quot; - and as that &quot;we&quot; we still have a responsibility to our users&#x2F;consumers. See Edit 1.
评论 #10871729 未加载
评论 #10871767 未加载
评论 #10871854 未加载
评论 #10873020 未加载
评论 #10878547 未加载
m0nty超过 9 年前
I can do without Forbes.<p>The problem with saying &quot;switch off adblocker or no article&quot; is that so many people are using adblockers, that those websites face an inevitable decline in influence if they continue that way. Because, despite what they say, it&#x27;s not just about the money: it&#x27;s the ability to influence the debate, whatever it might be. To have your editorials taken seriously and widely quoted. To make people listen. They&#x27;re losing that ability, together with readers and revenue.
评论 #10871286 未加载
评论 #10871374 未加载
评论 #10871552 未加载
userbinator超过 9 年前
This reminds me of a time when a site asked me to enable JavaScript for &quot;a better experience&quot;. I had been defaulting to JS off for a long time due to how effectively it stopped ads and other annoyances, and see these messages a lot, but this time I was momentarily curious for some reason; I did, only to be immediately assaulted with a bunch of ads, some crap following the pointer&#x2F;scrolling, slide-overs, and other distracting annoyances that I would not at all call &quot;a better experience&quot;. Fortunately I didn&#x27;t get malware, but since then I&#x27;ve been much more cautious.<p>I know many are rather fond of sayings like &quot;JS off will break most sites&quot;, but I challenge you to experience the web with it off by default and turn it on only for the few sites that absolutely need it; depending on what your most visited sites are, you may actually enjoy it. I find that the majority of sites are perfectly readable without JS.<p>On the other hand, I wonder if there are sites which use JS to hide the content and display a &quot;turn <i>off</i> JavaScript to view this article&quot;, or &quot;install adblocker to view this article&quot;...
评论 #10872457 未加载
评论 #10872329 未加载
评论 #10872504 未加载
评论 #10872639 未加载
评论 #10872066 未加载
davb超过 9 年前
This is rich, being reported by Engadget. I&#x27;ve reached out to them numerous times to let them know their ad networks try to redirect Chrome (Android) users to Play Store apps. It doesn&#x27;t happen all the time, and it doesn&#x27;t happen on desktop browsers. But it&#x27;s frustrating and cheap.<p>They didn&#x27;t respond.
aczerepinski超过 9 年前
Loading forbes.com and scrolling to the bottom of the page requires nearly 500 http requests. Anybody willing to share what it&#x27;s like to work on a project like that? I assume that they employ skilled web developers who are aware of best practices, but aren&#x27;t empowered to improve things?
评论 #10871903 未加载
评论 #10871477 未加载
评论 #10871547 未加载
评论 #10871910 未加载
volaski超过 9 年前
Forbes comes in first place bar none if you compute (shadiness&#x2F;brand visibility). They do all kinds of shady stuff like clickbait titles, shadiest of the shadiest ad formats, that meaningless interstitial ad, and probably whole lot more I&#x27;m not even aware of. Whenever I somehow land on one of their pages (I NEVER visit them voluntarily, it&#x27;s mostly via some clickbait title I click without thinking), I always think &quot;Just die off already if you can&#x27;t figure out how to make money without alienating people who have believed in you. You&#x27;re being a disgrace to what Forbes used to be and people who worked hard to build up that reputation&quot;
echochar超过 9 年前
In an &quot;Ask HN:&quot; someone is calling for a ban on Forbes.<p>Forbes has indeed reached a new plateau in stupidity.<p>Anyone using a text-only browser has seen that Forbes&#x27; most recent design transfers all the content but prevents the page from even displaying in even the most accomodating browser. The word that comes to my mind for their approach to web development is &quot;boneheaded&quot;.<p>Quick and dirty script to view Forbes articles, with no ads:<p><pre><code> curl http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;... \ |sed &#x27; 1i\ &lt;html&gt; s&#x2F;\\n&#x2F;\ &#x2F;g; s&#x2F;\\r&#x2F;&#x2F;g; s&#x2F;\\&quot;&#x2F;\&quot;&#x2F;g; $a\ &lt;&#x2F;html&gt; &#x2F;.&#x2F;{2,&#x2F;try {&#x2F;d; &#x2F;} catch&#x2F;,$d;} &#x27; &gt; 1.html </code></pre> Then view 1.html in your browser.<p>Why did I call their web design &quot;boneheaded&quot;?<p>They include two full copies of the article.<p>And this is before all the ads and God knows what are injected into the page.
blisterpeanuts超过 9 年前
Maybe people will ultimately resort to scrapers to get to the content. Scrape it into your favorite text viewer. Of course the layout will keep changing, so it will become a contest to keep updating the scraper scripts, with websites dedicated to keeping the latest scripts available. Or is that what Adblock does already?
评论 #10871428 未加载
paulpauper超过 9 年前
Forbes is like a for-profit Wikipedia. Impossible to not see a Forbes result after when you do a google search. I think I saw a Forbes result when looking up some obscure string theory query. They are everywhere now. Like a kudzu. Their gateway pages are annoying, and I&#x27;m surprised they don&#x27;t run afoul of Google&#x27;s SEO guidelines.
评论 #10871351 未加载
评论 #10871980 未加载
kefka超过 9 年前
By default, I use comprehensive ad blockers on my client machines. I also suggest and assist installing them as well on anyone&#x27;s machine without cost (normally billable).<p>A great deal of problems are solved full stop by doing that simple step. And it also sends the message of , &quot;Not interested&quot;. I go to a website to read content, not to be swayed on what shit to buy immediately or later.<p>Oh, and punishment for allowing ads are &quot;broken or slow machine clogged with malware&quot;. I&#x27;ll pass.
jimrandomh超过 9 年前
This problem is present, to varying but nonzero degrees, in all of the advertising networks. And they&#x27;re doing a miserable job of fighting it. I recently saw malware advertised through AdSense, and decided to try to report it. There was no mechanism for doing so, and I checked everywhere.
jjm超过 9 年前
I used to be an avid Forbes reader but then came the ad insanity. One thing is for sure,<p>__I will not give up on my ad blocker__<p>even if it means not visiting and reading the sites whose content I enjoyed or even canceling my subscriptions. This is a free market, a new entrant will emerge for me in no time.
amluto超过 9 年前
Why are ad buyers permitted to provide ads that contain script in the first place? What was wrong with images?
评论 #10872409 未加载
0x0超过 9 年前
No comments from Forbes on this?
评论 #10873206 未加载
aaronchall超过 9 年前
I tweeted at them on Christmas day that I&#x27;m not going to be turning of my ad-blocker:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;aaronchall&#x2F;status&#x2F;679334126374297600" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;aaronchall&#x2F;status&#x2F;679334126374297600</a><p>It&#x27;s my computer, I&#x27;m not going to load crap I don&#x27;t want to load on it. If they want to block other content for it, I don&#x27;t have to visit their site.
exodust超过 9 年前
I won&#x27;t be turning off my ad blocker, but why can&#x27;t ad blockers disguise themselves?<p>Surely there&#x27;s a way to trick their site into believing I have a normal adblock-free browser. Even a per-site whitelist kind of thing, whereby popular sites with adblock detection can be dealt with via addon scripts - say for uBlock.
评论 #10872907 未加载
评论 #10871894 未加载
johnhenry超过 9 年前
Perhaps we&#x27;re coming to an understanding that third-party advertising isn&#x27;t such a great revenue model for the web because it requires users to abandon security. It&#x27;s becoming increasingly clear that what we get for free by allowing these ads simply isn&#x27;t worth giving up our security.
评论 #10872485 未加载
ck2超过 9 年前
Correct me if I am wrong but no advertiser pays for just showing ads on a website anymore.<p>They pay you for clicks.<p>If someone is blocking ads, they certainly are not going to click just because you ask them to allow them to be shown or find a way to force them being shown.
评论 #10872251 未加载
dafrankenstein2超过 9 年前
have faced this recently. didnt turn off adblocker bcoz i&#x27;ve seen 11(as far i can remember) ads blocked by my adblocker
mark_lee超过 9 年前
fuck adblockers, I know what they&#x27;re thinking.
评论 #10872793 未加载