
Forbes Site, After Begging You Turn Off Adblocker, Serves Up Malware 'Ads' - jackgavigan
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbes-site-after-begging-you-turn-off-adblocker-serves-up-steaming-pile-malware-ads.shtml
======
ikeboy
Blogspam of the story discussed in
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10870892](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10870892)

------
georgespencer
My process

1\. Click Forbes link 2\. Get blank page where ad should be and "Continue to
site" link 3\. Click continue 4\. Get request to turn off ad blocker 5\. Laugh
that I can't remember that Forbes blocks ad blockers 6\. Google the headline
7\. Read the story someplace else

Hope that helps.

~~~
jasonkostempski
I really want a plug that will let me mark sites like Forbes and then decorate
any links to it indicating I've already decided I don't want to go there. This
way Forbes doesn't even get a +1 visit from me. I've had this thought several
times over the last few months so last night I started work on a Chrome plugin
that takes a regex pattern and css styles, finds the pattern in the markup and
then applies the css to the first visible element containing the pattern. I'm
hoping it will be useful for more than just reminding myself to not click
links.

~~~
Nadya
> _I really want a plug that will let me mark sites like Forbes and then
> decorate any links to it indicating I 've already decided I don't want to go
> there. This way Forbes doesn't even get a +1 visit from me._

Host file.

forbes.com 127.0.0.1

At home I have a giant list of sites I've blocked for this.

#Requests I turn off uBlock. Doing them the courtesy of not giving them any
traffic instead.

~~~
chipperyman573
The thing is that actually is a curtesy. If you have your adblocker off, they
gain nothing from having you read their article and have to pay for the
bandwidth. They don't want your traffic.

~~~
Nadya
Yes - and that's the point. I wasn't being sarcastic in my comment of being
courteous. I have three options. Ignore their plea, disable my adblock for
them, or don't visit at all. They expect me to choose option 2. Out of the
other two options, I choose the more courteous one.

All it is doing is slowing their death. News which doesn't get consumed will
die out.

I'm of the opinion that ad-based business models on the internet will not work
much longer. I'm of the opinion that only three business models will survive
the next decade:

1) Collecting and selling user data in bulk (Massive sites that have access to
said data)

2) Paywalls (Most sites)

3) Donations (minority, tight knit communities)

Will the web be worse off for it? Potentially. But I see ads as _extremely_
harmful to people and not something to be tolerated regardless of the reason.
From the subtle control over peoples' psyche, serving malware, or even being
straight up scams... I don't see advertisements as moral and think the world
would be better off without them.

------
untog
IMO, this is the biggest issue facing ad providers today.

I get the anti-ad blocker complaints - there are a lot of sites that depend
entirely upon advertising revenue for their continued existence. And this
isn't just crappy blogmills - even a company like the New York Times doesn't
make enough money from subscriptions alone to continue operating without
advertising of some sort.

Maybe there's a different model out there but as far as I'm aware no-one has
found it yet, and in the mean time I'm quite prepared to tolerate advertising
on web sites in return for the content I get. I'll even tolerate a pre-roll ad
or a full-screen takeover before I get to a page every now and then - but
there's a line. The mild end of it (for me) is ads clearly intended to make
you click by accident, and the severe end of it is malware like this. And in
my experience it's on the rise.

By all means implore your users to turn off their ad blockers. But clean house
first and make sure you know what you're serving. The real problem is that
it's borderline impossible for anyone to do so, given how many reseller
networks exist out there these days. I often see people say that sites should
arrange and sell their own advertising - but the reality is there's no money
in it. Selling yourself out to the Google ad behemoth is often the only way
out.

~~~
uptown
"Maybe there's a different model out there but as far as I'm aware no-one has
found it yet"

Sure they have. Sites just need to host the ads natively instead of
outsourcing that responsibility. But they don't want to do that, because they
don't want to take on that responsibility.

~~~
stevesearer
This is how my site works and it works well. In theory I might be able to make
a bit more via an ad network, but I like treating my site like a magazine and
have highly relevant and high-quality ads.

~~~
oaktowner
I just looked at [http://officesnapshots.com/](http://officesnapshots.com/)
and I agree -- that's what advertising _should_ be. Congrats.

Two questions: how much time do you spend selling/negotiating with
advertisers? And you say you could earn more from a network: have you
researched at all exactly how much more?

Naively, it seems that maybe advertisers would pay you _more_ because 100% of
the visitors to your site are relevant to their products (but admittedly I'm
out of my realm of expertise).

~~~
stevesearer
Thanks for the kind words!

It is difficult to say how much time I spend on that side of things since it
has been built up over time and have pretty high advertiser loyalty - total
guess, but maybe 5-20% depending on the time of year. Most of my time is spent
acquiring, editing, and categorizing content as well as adding new features to
the site.

I haven't really done much research into the various networks, but I do get
sales pitches from time to time. My first question is always wondering which
advertisers using the network are relevant to my readers (almost always the
answer is none). Plus at this point I have a direct relationship with
marketing departments, so there isn't really a need for a middleman.

Edit: for people here interested in tech offices, here's the best link:
[http://officesnapshots.com/offices/?fwp_industry=technology](http://officesnapshots.com/offices/?fwp_industry=technology)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
This is more or less the old print model - take a topic, create quality
content, take money from very specific relevant advertisers.

It's such an obvious model that it's amazing the ad industry hasn't understood
how well it works. Instead they persist in using crappy non-functional
trackers and ad blocker blockers and all kinds of other bullshit techniques -
because apparently they'd rather game readers than provide something good and
useful.

Postscript: a minor bug. I'm using OS X Chrome, and the ad bar keeps twitching
when I reach the end and try to scroll down further.

~~~
stevesearer
Yeah, I basically think about the site as being a magazine with enhanced
features. Unfortunately news sites like CNN don't have a narrow audience and
therefore use technology to slice and dice the visitors into narrow groups.

Is that scroll bug on all pages with the ad sidebar? Do you run any script
blockers?

------
coldpie
I'm willing to compromise on web advertising, but not while this is possible.
I don't understand why on Earth ad networks, and more importantly content
publishers, allow arbitrary Javascript and Flash through their networks and
onto their websites. You as a content publisher are not allowed to compromise
your users' security, full stop. You are responsible for any compromises that
come through your website. Until content publishers get that through their
thick fucking skulls, I will continue to use an ad blocker and strongly
recommend them to everyone I know. I would rather all ad-supported businesses
fail than allow this malware to continue be distributed.

------
JacobJans
Google is largely responsible for the situation we're now in. As the largest
provider of ads on the web, they regularly turn a blind eye to malware
advertising served by their network.

They simply do not take malware seriously. They continually let it exist on
their ad network. As a publisher that uses Adsense I find this extremely
frustrating. As example: I've spent quite a bit of time attempting to block
ads that lead to the "ask.com toolbar." These are always deceptive. They
confuse my visitors and then I hear about it.

Additionally ads where the only text is "Download Now" or "Read Your Private
Messages" are clearly deceptive. And yet they're allowed.

There are so many _easy_ ways Google could improve the situation. And yet,
they don't. This is a serious problem, and it is only going to get worse until
Google responds appropriately.

~~~
morley
The problem isn't Google or DoubleClick; it's a structural problem with the ad
industry.

Most sites that serve ads can't sell all their inventory directly, so they
fill their remaining impressions with ad networks, who sell bulk inventory
space. Those ad networks have the same economic limitations from selling all
their inventory, so they need to sell _their_ remaining impressions to another
network. And so on down the line.

All it takes is for one ad network to get a little loose with their serving
policy for a malware provider to make an in. And I can't think of a way for an
upstream ad network (or even DoubleClick) to ban malware, without tracking
down that errant provider. You can't blacklist a domain, because usually the
ad network hosts the ad itself. And like it or not, ads have to run Javascript
or Flash.

It's a crappy situation to be in, but it's not any one actor's fault (except
for the malware advertiser), and the fix isn't easy or else someone would have
thought of it.

~~~
coldpie
> And like it or not, ads have to run Javascript or Flash.

They certainly don't need to run whatever arbitrary scripts the advertiser
wants. The advertising network can provide whatever functionality the
advertiser needs, there's no reason to leave this obvious hole open. The idea
that I can pay someone some cash to put whatever arbitrary JS I want directly
into Forbes's website is utterly ludicrous.

------
davesque
Because it may not be obvious, this article is from early January. A number of
different sites reported on these incidents back when they happened. Here are
a few examples:

[http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-
say...](http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say-block-
that-malware/)

[http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-
rea...](http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-readers-to-
turn-off-ad-blockers-promptly-serves-malware)

[http://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/security/forbes-...](http://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/security/forbes-
malware-ad-blocker-advertisements.html)

~~~
lowestkey
Was wondering if it was happening again or what the deal was. Just a months
old article popping up again for some reason.

------
K0nserv
My $0.02

Publishers should look to Stack Overflow and be inspired to run ads of high
quality and relevance[0].

Throw out the ad networks, tracking, and reject rich media ads. Instead focus
on high value ads that align well with your readership and manually verify the
quality of these ads. If publishers do this I am willing to turn of my ad
blocker.

0: [https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-
do...](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-doesnt-care-
about-ad-blockers/)

~~~
ktRolster
Publishers want to make more money than Stack Overflow. That's basically why.

------
ArtDev
This is why I use an adblocker blocker blocker ([https://github.com/reek/anti-
adblock-killer/](https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/)).

~~~
dbcurtis
Seems to me this functionality could be wrapped up in a web proxy. The proxy
can pretend to allow all the ads, and simply drop them on the way to clients.
Of course this doesn't deal with the issue of ads soaking up a bunch of
bandwidth.

I get tired of installing ad blockers on every machine/device in the house,
and on some machines use multiple different browsers -- I'm suffering from
blocker installation fatigue.

~~~
ryandrake
> I get tired of installing ad blockers on every machine/device in the house,
> and on some machines use multiple different browsers -- I'm suffering from
> blocker installation fatigue.

If you run dnsmasq, you can block [1] a lot of ads for your entire house at
once through DNS.

1: [https://www.debian-
administration.org/article/535/Blocking_a...](https://www.debian-
administration.org/article/535/Blocking_ad_servers_with_dnsmasq)

~~~
w-ll
There's also Pi Hole, which you setup on a raspberry pi. Which is nice because
you can leave it on all day. Where as at night when I shut down my desktop but
might be using my phone or a tablet.

[https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)

~~~
itslennysfault
This looks awesome, but is there a way to bypass this from the browser?
Occasionally, I give in and disable ad block if I really want to see
something.

------
xori
Pretty sure they didn't actually serve malware and that news sites just made
the click-bait title for clicks.

[http://www.ghettoforensics.com/2016/03/of-malware-and-
adware...](http://www.ghettoforensics.com/2016/03/of-malware-and-adware-why-
forbes-was.html#more)

~~~
shkkmo
I understand everyone's frustration around this issue, I hate site that block
adblocker users as well. However, this article is an example of unethical
journalism.

TL;DR

Article says "Well, how about they start treating their ad inventory with at
least a percentage of the care with which they treat their content?"

The researcher who discovered the issue says "Forbes almost immediately
reached out and we started a dialog. We shared logs, events, and descriptions
of the ad."

In contrast, when the researcher reached out the correct the Engadget article
that started this and quoted him, he got no response.

------
tombert
I remember thinking this was suspicious. I remember about three months ago I
added a bunch of known malware sites to my hostfile so that I wouldn't give
them traffic, and I couldn't get to Forbes.

Funny, too, because I don't even use Ad-block.

------
SCAQTony
Those sites that serve up malware scripts and call them ads, perhaps ad-
blockers should rebrand and start calling themselves malware-blockers?

------
jordigh
Wow, the language, "hold their content hostage". I hate ads probably more than
most[1], but still, if Forbes doesn't want to give up their articles without
fair compensation, that's their prerogative. They're not taking hostages.

\--

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10939083](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10939083)

~~~
lostgame
Uh...'fair compensation' is not installing malware. I don't think that's ever
fair.

~~~
jordigh
I didn't say it was. I thought that was implied when I said I hated ads. But
the language of holding your own writings "hostage" because you don't want to
give them up without some kind of compensation is just absurd.

I wish Forbes just was honest and went full paywall. I wish everyone did this.

------
tmaly
I noticed there are a lot more sites that can detect Ad Blockers. They hassle
you about disabling the blocker.

Why not just make the ad inline into the content of the page. It would speed
up the site as you would not have to make all the extra connections to these
ad networks via thirdparty javascript.

~~~
flying_kangaroo
Ad networks don't want to trust publishers to accurately report page hits with
inline images, they also would presumably like to be able to track users and
serve up "tailored" ads, which they can't really do if they don't get any
information on the user before serving the ad.

------
tracker1
I'm not sure why one of these big sites haven't been hit with a class action
lawsuit... the website is responsible for the content it delivers... period.
Especially when they force users to disable their ad blockers.

It seems to me, that someone who got an $xxx ransomware, or paid the nerd herd
to remove malware from their computers could be the base of a class action
lawsuit... That's what it will take to get this crap to change is to actually
hold one of these larger media sites responsible.

~~~
ridgeguy
Agreed. If Forbes is serving malware to visitors who have complied with its
instruction to turn off their adblockers, and if those visitors suffer damages
due to malware served through Forbes, you'd think there's the basis for at
least individual suits against Forbes, maybe class action.

One argument is that Forbes has a duty of care and the ability to prevent
serving damaging malware to its compliant invitees (visitors). They're in
breach of that duty, so maybe damages for negligence?

------
ihsw
So what's wrong with image-only ads? Why do we have to let advertisers inject
their own JS into a web page?

------
justsaysmthng
What bothers me in the ad blocker debate is that publishers want me to turn it
off so I can see the ads.

Not _click_ on them, just see them. Even though I _never_ click on any ads,
they still consider it valuable to subliminally influence me into wanting
stuff I don't want.

To me, this is even shittier than forcing me to click on an ad before giving
me the content. But to also serve me malware... is beyond shitty, it's
dangerous.

Content is cheap these days. There's too much of it out there, high quality
and free. In fact, I wouldn't mind if there were less content produced on the
Internet.

I know that the content that is really valuable will still stay and all the
bullshit that needs ads to stay afloat will disappear.

Forbes with malware? No, thanks.

For me the rule of thumb is this - if you need me to turn off my ad blocker,
then I don't need your content.

------
joeblau
I use Steven Blacks hosts script[1] and every time I see Forbes paywall, I
just leave. If the article is _that_ important, some other outlet will cover
the news.

[1] -
[https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

~~~
peatmoss
I knew about someonewhocares, but this is appears to aggregate that plus
several others. Thank you for the tip!

------
http-teapot
I run both AdBlock and Ghostery. I experienced the same interstitial as every
one, was particularly interested in the article headline, disabled AdBlock,
reloaded the page, still blocked, disabled Ghostery, reload the page, worked.

Ghostery disabled, it initially reported that about 60 trackers loaded in the
page which then quickly turned to 97 to then reach more than 110 trackers.

I highly recommend installing Ghostery.

[https://twitter.com/teapot/status/707016161234276352](https://twitter.com/teapot/status/707016161234276352)
[https://twitter.com/teapot/status/707016382286680066](https://twitter.com/teapot/status/707016382286680066)

~~~
danieldk
Why use a blocker by a company that sells user statistics?[1] Seriously
wondering, since uBlock provides virtually the same and more.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Business_model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Business_model)

~~~
http-teapot
I'll give uBlock a try!

I am aware of Ghostery's business model and I am not against businesses
selling metrics and/or ads in general. I think there should be consequences
for companies that do not have the best interests for the users.

------
barretts
Forbes' "Please turn off your adblocker" interstitial is a great reminder not
to read Forbes' clickbait bullshit pseudo-journalism.

~~~
shkkmo
as opposed to this article's clickbait bullshit pseudo-journalism?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11455718](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11455718)

------
oli5679
Yesterday I tried to read a Forbes article on my mobile. It presented me with
the banner asking me to turn ad-blocker off (which I haven't installed). I
reloaded the page and was faced with pop-ups claiming I had won free Amazon
products.

~~~
coldpie
If you're interested in mobile ad blocking (if you're concerned about the
security of your mobile device, you should be), uBlock Origin works very well
in Firefox for Android. I strongly recommend you install it before your device
is compromised.

~~~
danieldk
Or on iOS Purify, which was made by the developer of uBlock, Chris Aljoudi:

[https://www.purify-app.com/](https://www.purify-app.com/)

------
tripzilch
Apart from the security aspects (and Forbes' responsibility therein), I'd like
to say something about an argument I hear often in this context: That without
payment via advertising, the "quality content"-writers won't have a reason to
produce more quality content and it will dry up (or something; the actual
consequences are often left to the imagination).

Consider clickbait.

Consider listicles, blogspam, the "you'll never guess X these celebrities Y",
reposts of photos of cool-seeming-yet-utterly-impractical things to do with
food/furniture/clothing/lifestyle/health/etc. At some point you probably
helped clean out a friends' Windows laptop, tried to Google whether some
process or application is useful or safe to remove--yeah those sites. I can't
list all the types and categories, there's hundreds.

The _only_ reason trash like this even _exists_ , the only way this
unfathomable high-volume fire-hose of vapidity is made possible, is because of
these advertising networks.

 _This_ is what the vast majority of all those advertising dollars buys us.

Who is more likely to stop producing content if advertising revenue
disappears? The high-volume low-effort clickbait-linkspam writers, or the
"quality content" writers that actually care about the things they write
about?

I'm convinced that if the online advertising industry were to collapse some
day (I can hope, but I doubt it'll happen), it will be a net-positive for ALL
the content online. Not just because an Internet without advertisement is just
so much nicer, but also because the clickbait writers will be the first to
stop producing "content", because unlike the quality writers that care, there
will be exactly _zero_ reason for them to continue producing informational
landfill.

------
kr0
I block all ads globally. Until this "different model" becomes prevalent I'm
not budging. The argument that there are websites that can't operate without
ads is valid, but there is no websites that __actually__ need ads that would
be willing to wall users of ad blockers. Sites like YouTube could never
implement such a wall without significant loss of revenue.

------
vlunkr
Forbes is truly terrible at this. I tried to read something there, had to
disable my ad blocker and ghostery. After refreshing, ghostery counted 40+
trackers on the site.

[https://www.ghostery.com/](https://www.ghostery.com/) \- I recommend it

------
joesmo
How is this not a violation of the CFAA? Why isn't Forbes being held
responsible and prosecuted? So if I go and access one file whose name is not
public on Forbes' website, I'm looking at least at 5-10 years in jail but
Forbes can infect millions and they get off scott free. The problem isn't ad
blockers, the problem is the ad networks. They are criminal and should be held
responsible. They should be shut down like any other spam network. They should
be made to pay. And anyone who uses these criminal networks to infect
computers is an accomplice and should be treated so.

At the very least, the people who are anti ad blockers will hopefully shut the
fuck up now because they're wrong and it's not a matter of opinion.

------
Mikho
The other day on Forbes site I clicked political article title in "relevant
articles" section just to be directed to penis enlargement web-site w/ popups
& malware. Interestingly the political article was definitely relevant not to
the article I read, but to my region. Checked back and found that this
"relevant" section is actually some 3rd party content exchange widget that
masks malware links under popular keywords and titles relevant to a reader
region where all titles lead to a malware web-sites.

------
brianbreslin
If Forbes set a minimum price for their ad backfill inventory (the shitty ad
inventory they fill with low quality ads), could it economically not make
sense to the networks to fill that space with malware ads?

~~~
DanielDent
Unfortunately I think you have it backwards.

Malware ads are being displayed because they are winning the auctions. That's
because - on a CPM basis - malware authors are probably the ones who will
always be able to pay the most. A successfully infected machine is worth a
good chunk of change.

Ad networks are uniquely suited to malware delivery. Have an exploit which
only works for OS X users? Don't bid on the windows users.

------
guelo
You don't want me as a reader and I don't want to read your ads, including the
ad about turning off my ad blocker. But the search engine I use sent me to
your site and it doesn't let me filter out sites with ads. I wish it did.
Obviously Google is never going to do it since they're the ones selling ads. I
had hopes for duckduckgo but they're showing more and more ads. What I'm
saying is, we need a search engine that excludes sites with ads.

------
vthallam
Apart from this, i have given up on Forbes because they keep almost all
content in multiple pages with no option to load in a single page(at least on
mobile).

------
Esau
Maybe we need to hold websites accountable for the ads that are served through
them. Maybe once they are sued a few times, they will take this seriously.

------
hashkb
Wasn't there a report like this about Forbes and malware a few months ago?
Have they responded in press? (Hopefully on Medium so I can read it.)

~~~
coldpie
As far as I've seen, content publishers' response to being caught distributing
malware is to say "It's the ad network's fault! We'll work with them to clean
it up." They never name the ad network and no changes will be implemented. The
only way to protect yourself is to install an ad blocker.

~~~
logfromblammo

      C: Excuse me?  Are you the produce manager?
      M: Yes, that's me.
      C: Oh, good.  Yesterday, I bought a banana here.
         When I got it home, I discovered there was a bomb in it.
      M: I'm only the produce manager.  I don't deal with bombs.
      C: But the bomb was *in* the banana.
      M: How was it?
      C: How was what?
      M: The banana.  Not bruised or overripe or anything?
      C: No, the banana was fine.  It was a perfectly normal banana.
         ...with a bomb in it.
      M: Ah, good.  Another satisfied customer.
      C: I am *not* satisfied!  I could have been killed!
      M: Were you?
      C: Obviously not!
      M: So what's the problem?
      C: There was a bomb in my banana!
      M: Well, we just sell the bananas as we get them, from the banana-modifying company.
      C: Why can't you just get your bananas direct from the plantation?
         Why can't I get an unaltered, unmodified banana--without any bombs in it?
      M: Excuse me, sir or madam, but this is a *business*.
         How do you expect us to pay our employees with a store full of unmodified bananas?
      C: [facepalm]

------
chris_wot
You know, this is why my dad's computer is riddled with malware every single
time I go over to his place. No new apps were installed, he doesn't even know
how. But he does browse the web.

First thing I'm doing when I get over there is install the most restrictive ad
blocker I can find.

------
mavdi
Business opportunity:

Browser extension that gets all the articles, post-processes to strip the ads
and serves the content when user asks for the same article url. I'd pay $9.99
for it. If the publishers won't get on board a unified subscription service,
let's just go around them.

~~~
unimpressive
Pretty flagrant copyright violation. However something _like_ this idea is
what Brendan Eich is currently working on with Brave.

------
noahster11
Simple fix:
[https://github.com/Mechazawa/FuckFuckAdblock](https://github.com/Mechazawa/FuckFuckAdblock)
I don't know why more people use this. It simply blocks sites from taking you
hostage

------
Magi604
I'll just take this opportunity to plug the Forbes™ Splash Screen Bypass
Chrome extension.

It's not my extension, and I don't know the nitty gritty details of how it
works, but I do know it stops that horrible Forbes splash screen from popping
up.

------
forrestthewoods
This is why I block all ads, all the time. No exception. There are no "good"
ads.

~~~
bitJericho
Same. Ads aren't good for anybody's health.

------
slipstream-
And that's why I use a nice helpful userscript that aims to work around these
things:
[https://github.com/adsbypasser/adsbypasser](https://github.com/adsbypasser/adsbypasser)

------
decals42
This article is true, but it's from January. Why is it at the top of the heap
now?

------
revelation
Seems simple enough, sue Forbes.

------
delgaudm
So far pi-hole[1] network based ad-blocker has proven to be the best use of
the Raspberry Pi i bought and didn't know what to do with it.

[1] [https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)

~~~
andrepd
Seems interesting. What is the performance/latency penalty?

~~~
paulbennett
Performance seems fine (on a Pi 2). I am going to have to add some URLs to the
whitelist though, as it has recently started affecting the ability to log into
Xbox Live.

------
nyolfen
if you're interested in escalating the adblock arms race, i've been using
IsraBlock[0][1] and it seems to work well

[0]
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/israblock/kekndmao...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/israblock/kekndmaoonpjhjhobkcegfaaikgnccbo?hl=en)

[1] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/israblock/?sr...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/israblock/?src=cb-dl-recentlyadded)

------
cjbprime
[https://twitter.com/wilkieii/status/684270238158958593](https://twitter.com/wilkieii/status/684270238158958593)

------
chinathrow
Sue them, file a class action and I am sure, they will learn.

------
crablar
Forbes is dealing with ad networks that aren't trustworthy.

The ad networks that are most profitable are going to have some terrible deal
flow that includes malware and viruses.

------
Animats
Why isn't this producing litigation? Users can sue Forbes. Forbes can sue
their ad supplier. There's a strong argument for negligence here.

------
brokentone
There needs to be a user-side ad validation layer, something that displays any
ad that meets industry security, load time, and tracking standards.

------
PhasmaFelis
I saw the title and thought "What, _again?_ " But the article is three months
old; it's about the original incident.

------
fightfortheuser
And that's why I never go to forbes anymore. It's a bad user experience. Now
they can add greedy and not secure to the list.

~~~
takno
Treat yourself and switch to never going there for the indifferent to poor
quality of the content. Whenever I hit the adwall I'm just grateful for the
reminder that I don't have to waste my time on that

------
Overtonwindow
If I really, really need to read an article on Forbes, I put the link in
Pocket. Strips away all the advertising and everything.

------
netman21
I stopped writing my column on security for Forbes after they started to
refuse entry based on Ad Blocker use.

------
mamcx
What is the reason a server-side solution is rarely used? What are the
opportunities to develop such thing?

------
ArkyBeagle
They're dead to me. Dead.

------
hvoiiita
I'm glad I stopped going to Forbes when they put up the adblock blocker

------
perseusprime11
I stopped visiting Forbes site. I will not turn off my Adblocker.

------
sysbot
Lower your shields so we can fire our nuclear torpedos at you!

------
coreyp_1
I have stopped going to Forbes at all for this very reason.

------
spriggan3
Between that and the pop ups that try to trick you into calling fake Windows
customer services, why are they still asking themselves why people block ads?

------
intrasight
Forbes should just turn off that steaming pile of a web site. Either that or
turn off all the ads since it is only damaging their reputation.

