
Ask HN: Who else uses adblockers for safety? - julie1
I have been programming <i>immersive</i> ads. I could modify from an embedded iframe the content of information sites, suck data out of people, manipulate data (like navigation history). And I got really not confident in what unethical people could do and seen no way we could detect misbehaving code.<p>I feel like the potential of vulnerabilities dynamic ads (JS based) exposes the users to is under stated by the industry.<p>I use adblockers to just protect myself.
Who else does it?<p>And who else think their may be an ad-gate of the ads companies not stating the risks clearly? I mean to any coder that actually coded ads, we know what it actually can do, right?
======
jerf
Over the last few years I've settled on using NoScript. Mostly it was more for
security or speed reasons; that it happened to block ads was just a happy side
effect and often not one that I pursued very hard. For many sites, I'd end up
with a page that had a couple of ads still on it, rather than a dozen ads plus
a popover. The only time I've spent much cognitive bandwidth on getting rid of
the ads is when the ads are being disgusting or half-pornographic. (It is not
per se that I "disagree" with skin, it is that I hate the advertisers for
deliberately trying to bypass my rational brain with those images. It's a
hostile cognitive move on their part.)

But it's getting harder. More JS frameworks that depend on JS to render
anything other than an empty white page. Then you whitelist that site, and it
needs a couple of other domains to render anything. Then you're playing "guess
which domain hosts the JS framework", which is not obvious, then you can also
go back and play "unwhitelist the wrong answers", which since we're probably
talking about a page that takes ten seconds to render and fifteen to be _sure_
it didn't render when I blocked that site is quite a pain.

Also cloudfront is getting more popular, and that's all but an opaque domain
now when it serves JS.

I'm getting seriously tempted to throw up my hands and do a serious adblock
switch. I don't think using somebody else's list of domains is ethical, for
various long and complicated reasons, but I'm finding myself having to balance
that against the fact that the advertising industry doesn't seem all that
worried about ethics at all, so I feel like I may be bringing an ethics knife
to an ethics gun fight.

~~~
anexprogrammer
I've found Firefox reader mode can often give me the content when all scripts
are still blocked. The blank page often still gives the reader icon :)

For those that don't trigger reader mode I'm increasingly hard nosed and just
start ignoring that domain. I'll not enable JS just to read an article or see
some images, only when it adds functionality. Most of the time I don't need to
- most sites work remarkably well with little or no JS, so I can afford not to
care about those that don't. I'm very reluctant to enable anything that's not
the visited domain.

EDIT: uBlock+NoScript+Stylish almost always active.

~~~
zeveb
> I've found Firefox reader mode can often give me the content when all
> scripts are still blocked.

For some reason Iceweasel doesn't seem to display the reader icon. It's a bit
of a nuisance …

~~~
Esau
Is Reader even part of Iceweasel? I was under the impression that it was
something that Mozilla licensed from a third party.

------
andreyf
This sounds like FUD. An iframe can get the page it's embedded in, but what do
you mean by "suck data out of people?" and how do you manipulate navigation
history out of an iframe?

What surprised me most from my time in adtech was the way companies used
redirects to sync user ids, i.e. news.com/story loads an image from
ads.com/user-sync-start?partner=data which 302 redirects to data.com/user-
sync?id=123 which redirects to ads.com/user-
sync?your_id=123&partner=data&our_id=456, which returns a 1x1 transparent
pixel gif. If that bothers you, disabling third party cookies should make it
impossible.

That said, I use adblockers for safety because ad networks seem like a great
way to serve browser 0-days.

~~~
julie1
Manipulating history belongs to one of the dark ages secret of "everlasting
cookies" aka the zombie cookies you can't kill. Navigation history was
globally accessible from any DOM elements when I was working in ad industry
(2013).

[http://samy.pl/evercookie/](http://samy.pl/evercookie/)

Some of these have been fixed, some not.

------
basseq
I use adblockers (ABP and Ghostery on desktop, Crystal on iOS) mostly to
minimize annoyances: videos that play automatically, malicious redirects to
the App Store, multiple trackers that slow down browsing or suck down data.

I'm not worried so much about _safety_ (e.g., ads as a malware vector), but I
know that happens. I don't have too much of an issue with data collection in
of itself, unless a) the act of data collection impacts me (e.g., 1MB of
tracking JS) or b) if your follow-on processes are sketchy and annoying (e.g.,
spam emails).

I have explicitly unblocked pure analytics platforms (e.g., Google Analytics),
trustworthy ad platforms (e.g., The Deck), and a few "site optimization"
libraries because some sites don't work without them (shame on them).

I totally get that ads are a revenue source. The problem is that you (as the
publisher) need to convince me that your ad platform is trustworthy—not
annoying or malicious. You have failed that test in the past and taken
advantage of me as a consumer. So you now need to earn that trust back. It's
not that I don't value your content, it's that _I don 't trust your
infrastructure_. (And yes, from my perspective, a third-party ad network is
still _your infrastructure_ because _you 've chosen to use it_.)

~~~
basseq
Wired is an example of publishers not "getting it". I get a big pop-up that
reads "Here's The Thing With Ad Blockers".

It goes on to say, "We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help
us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per
week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our
journalism. We’d really appreciate it."

As a reader: I get it! I want to support you! Of course I'm not here for ads,
but _I don 't care_. I care about your malicious ad network—do you? You
haven't proven that I can trust you to whitelist you, nor are you even showing
that you _know what my problem is_.

So no, you don't get the trust in a whitelist. I might pay for your content
explicitly, but I'm not paying $52/yr when I can get a year-long physical
subscription for $10. And, back to trust, I don't trust you with my CC number
either.

And finally: _I have another channel!_ I can go get all the Wired content I
want through Apple News, which is a) trustworthy, b) ad-free, and c) easy to
use.

~~~
sillywired
... and can trivially bypass WIRED's pop-up by just disabling JavaScript in
your browser (just 2 clicks Safari if you have Develop menu visible) after the
page loads but before you scroll.

------
butterfi
I just had this conversation with the director of IT yesterday. Given the rise
of ransomware and malvertising, I think its absolutely time we consider ad
blockers as important as anti-virus software. I realize how damaging this
can/will be for content publishers, but the ad networks have nobody else to
blame but themselves for how chaotic and dangerous online ad markets can be.

~~~
nickcano
At Bromium we do complete task isolation in uVMs and use monitoring to watch
what happens inside. Most customer infections we see come from ads, and
they're mostly cryptoransomware. It's absurd.

------
oliwarner
Yeah I'm with you.

Neither publishers or advertising networks seem to want to care about
sanitising the code they're letting be run in my browser, so screw them all.
I'll sanitise it by blocking it.

It's not just that though. Browsing without adverts is a better user
experience. This is just a side-effect of adverts, I'm afraid.

Now, I'm sure this probably fractures my license to read content on certain
sites... But I'm selfish and detecting ad-blocking is possible. It's up to
publishers now to decide whether or not they're really happy blocking 30-70%
(demo-dependent) of their traffic.

------
zeveb
On my personal machines, I use µBlock (I'll always call it that, not uBlock …)
Origin and NoScript, and only disable NoScript when I really, _really_ want to
read a page which is so broken that it requires JavaScript to even display.
Normally, I don't bother: people who break the Web don't really deserve to
have their words read.

On work machines, I use µBlock origin and NoScript, but with NoScript set in
blacklist mode, so almost all sites run JavaScript.

In this manner I reach what I consider pragmatic tradeoffs.

I'll admit though that I am absolutely, completely _livid_ at the continued
destruction of the Web's ideals by JavaScript. The Web is about documents, not
executables!

~~~
rsync
This is the real ublock origin:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-
origin/cjpa...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-
origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en)

correct ? I am always wary that there is some clone project out there that
hijacks the original intent of ublock and is somehow name-camping on some
derivative of "ublock origin".

That's the correct add-on in the google chrome store, yes ?

~~~
luxpir
That + uMatrix (using the u, not the mu, because I'm a human and actually want
this tech to proliferate...) are made by gorhill - see the 'Related' tab on
the Chrome store link you gave, 'Same developer' and you'll find uMatrix.

ublock-origin is the cut-down, simplified version, uMatrix is the 'power user'
version, giving more finely grained control over what's blocked.

zeveb: you should probably just use uMatrix. Less memory consumption and
deduplication of tasks. Not to mention the shady noscript under-the-table
deals.

------
thedevil
I'm ethically opposed to adblockers as they deny content creators a means of
making money for their work.

Yet, ads have gotten so out of hand that I'm about to install adblockers
partly for safety, partly for other issues. They track my information when I
would not expect it. And I just had a simple news website suck up 2GB of
memory. And on my phone, simple websites with 1K text frequently suck up 5MB
for ads - and I can't easily predict and control that.

Edit: ADP now installed. And it says it doesn't block "non-intrusive" ads
unless I ask it to - which sounds pretty good from my perspective.

~~~
luxpir
> I'm ethically opposed to adblockers as they deny content creators a means of
> making money for their work.

Quick rebuttal:

\- People who use adblockers aren't likely to click ads anyway (maybe
improving CTR for advertisers?).

\- Server logs can still tell you how many 'hits' you've had, which were bots
etc. even if various JS analytics snippets are blocked. These can be shared
with ad partners, even if 100% of your visitors use adblocking.

\- Advertising is not the only way to make money from writing/media and I'm
becoming ever more convinced that it is even an immoral and hostile action on
behalf of the advertisers and their partners (unless done in a mutually
beneficial way, such as keyword bidding/ads relevant to expressed commercial
needs).

Sadly the response to all this seems to be increased product placement. There
are cultural divides between various countries and the web will most likely
homogenise over the average at one point, but in areas of ad-desensitized
culture we'll see the worst of advertising (or best, depending on your
viewpoint).

EDIT(3): uMatrix + pihole user (uMatrix for me, pihole for everyone else on
the network, mobile and tab included)

~~~
thedevil
1: I don't judge anyone for using adblockers because there's a lot of moral
grey area here.

2: "Advertising is not the only way to make money from writing/media"

-> I don't think this is a very good argument. It may be the only reasonable way for that content creator to make money.

3: "I'm becoming ever more convinced that it is even an immoral and hostile
action"

-> Some of these ads are hostile, but some are attempting to make money in a very reasonable way. You're demonizing the entire group, including some who are creating value for you and me.

Edit: A little anecdote: There is a project I'd like to do that involves
investing considerable time and money in creating content that will be shared
with the world and would help a lot of people. I'd like to make some money
back out of it for my time and costs. Free but with ads is the best way to
help the most people but still make money. However, it might be difficult to
make much and I would have to deal with people attacking me for trying to make
money off ads. This is a factor that is actually affecting my decision as to
whether or not I pursue this project (which I will decide in the next several
months).

~~~
luxpir
Appreciate the further consideration of those points.

As for your project; do it! If it'll help people, write it all and release it
under a creative commons licence. Spread it far and wide. It could be your
legacy, long after you've left the earth and stopped worrying about money.

I self-published a book in 2011. I charged for it. It ran its course, the
product lifecycle played out and I'd made more than it cost to put it
together. It's now free to read on my site and will soon be added to the
creative commons as a PDF to be freely shared. I continue to benefit from its
existence in other ways than monetary.

If you really do want money in return for the effort, charge for the
publication. Get it published professionally or self-publish and promote it
widely. Do you think the ad model is best because you are convinced people
will only find what they're looking for through a search engine or social
media?

EDIT: Would the people you help with your publication be helped even more by
the ads displayed alongside it? Who would click the ads to make the project
pay?

------
orclev
Safety is the primary reason I use not just Ad Blockers but NoScript as well.
Preventing cross-site tracking is a nice bonus (I don't mind Ads so much, but
the networks cross a line because they track your browsing behavior which
violates your privacy).

~~~
woud420
While the safety argument remains, you might want to look in enabling the Do
Not Track feature in your browser. While I can't guarantee every bidder /
adserver / etc.. respect it, it's a good way to insure some privacy while
allowing sites you visit to survive.

~~~
jensen123
It seems that the Do Not Track feature will only give you a false sense of
safety and privacy. It depends on the advertising companies actually
respecting your choice, which most do not, according to this article:

[http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/fcc-wont-force-
websi...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/fcc-wont-force-websites-to-
honor-do-not-track-requests/)

~~~
woud420
Without even needing to read it, it is, you're right. It becomes a bit of an
ethical problem at this point where in order to get accreditation, adtech
companies need to respect the header but, unfortunately, no one is forcing
Advertisers or Publishers to work with an accreditated adtech company.

------
nkrisc
I primarily used adblockers to remove invasive ads that take over the page,
but with more and more reports of malware served through ad networks I
consider it safer as well.

The only ads I ever click on are ones I never meant to. Usually because the
page loads so slow because of ads so content jumps under my finger on my
phone.

------
majewsky
I use uMatrix, mostly to block malicious or intrusive JavaScript. It's not
primarily intended as an adblocker, but effectively works like one since most
ads are served by untrusted third parties.

But since more and more malware is now spreading through ad networks, I've
taken it one step further and rolled out domain-level adblocking on my router
(on the DNS level), mainly as a way of securing non-updateable devices like
Android phones of guests.

Note that this means that I cannot whitelist ads for a specific domain, but
since adblocking was never my primary concern to begin with, I consider that
acceptable. I will always see ads if they are served from the same domain (or
from any other domain that is not a known ad server), so there's a clear and
easy way for publishers to get ads in front of my eyes, should they decide to
give a shit.

------
klagermkii
I installed an adblocker on my Mac after I was using mobile tethering with my
computer muted, and some ad went through a huge video playlist in another
window using close to 1 GB of data. It was worth around $20 at the time in
local currency, and that was it for ads on the laptop.

I installed a hosts blocker on my Android phone after I found myself hitting a
large number of sites which would popup ad alerts and then forcibly redirect
to another site (where they'd try and get me to download and run an APK). This
might be more prevalent in "poor" countries where the fill rate is bad, and so
these kinds of scams end up being the only ads available and possibly aren't
noticed by the networks.

~~~
distances
Just a tip, Firefox has Android version too, and many plugins (including
uBlock Origin) work just fine with it.

------
askyourmother
I browse mostly on mobile these days, with JS turned off. Sites load quickly,
the small amount of actual content can be quickly consumed, and my monthly
data allowance remains in trim.

Before this humungous amounts of JS and adverts blocked the screen, slowed
loading times, tried to infect the phone, steal browser history data, and
sucked down my data allowance greedily.

------
therealmarv
This is my main usage of uBlock and Firefox Beta on Android. I cannot browse
the web on Android with Chrome and without Adblock anymore because I got so
annoyed by Malware/Scareware/Scamware which vibrates my phone and redirecting
me to virus warn sites (which look like made from Google). Good example which
is 100% safe (open with Chrome on Android):
[https://shkspr.mobi/vibratescam/](https://shkspr.mobi/vibratescam/)

Try to explain to some non nerds or your parents what is happening on the last
link ;)

~~~
luxpir
My mother-in-law very much appreciated not having ads in her free apps
recently, as well as browsing her favourite news sites quicker, ad-free, due
to the pihole set up and used by the router.

I didn't put her up to appreciating it either, I'd just mentioned I'd done it
and some weeks later when visiting she noticed the difference. They may not
always be the most tech-savvy generation (in general), but some things are
universal!

------
codingminds
I use an adblocker because many ads are annoying and consume much CPU and
bandwidth. And of course, the security impact is another reason to block all
those ad networks but that was not my first intention.

Only very few pages are on my whitelist. E.g. Stack Overflow because they have
good ads which are well-chosen.

------
anonyfox
I use it for safety, bandwith reduction, performance gains, and to not get
distracted while focussing/researching. In that order of importance.

~~~
julie1
Do you tell your kins/friends about your safety concerns and advise them to do
the same? Else, why not?

~~~
anonyfox
I tell them, but this particular topic doesn't seem to be a huge issue that
interests them, like virus protection for windows. Some just default install
free protection, some ignore it and re-install their computers from scratch
yearly.

Perceived performance and (expecially on mobile) reduced bandwidth/energy
usage is the seelling point for my non-tech friends.

------
technomancy
Does noscript count? You "miss out" on a whole boatload of ads by accident
that way.

~~~
julie1
it does to.

It is also a prophylactic measure that is efficient. And yes, I missed the non
ads dynamic contents that could also be unsafe. Then I would get paranoid with
thousands sloc of JS included of minified code per project build with complex
build chains. Knowing that ff extensions are in JS, I should purely stop using
JS with my reasoning.

But as pointed out it results on some websites to serve degraded contents.

So it makes you choose between full access of web content, or safe access to a
smaller part of the web.

------
edoceo
I've been putting ad blockers, one form or another on all my friends/family
devices for some time. Mostly cause I hated wasting time cleaning up crapware
infections. Security yes but also prevents wasted time.

~~~
trothamel
This. I had been cleaning my parents' computer about thrice a year. I haven't
had to do that ever since I added an adblocker.

Just the other day, I needed to get a print driver for my aunt's computer. I
searched bing (which she had as the default), and this came up:

[http://share.rothamel.us/bing-hp-drivers.png](http://share.rothamel.us/bing-
hp-drivers.png)

Yes, there is a muted gray "Ad" there, but the first two links - rendered like
real links - are not to HP. And I'm pretty sure that's just asking for
problems.

------
GrinningFool
I use RequestPolicy. It gives fairly fine-grained control over which third
party sites are loaded, and from which origin.

It's the best of both worlds for me. I'll see the ads I don't object to (those
not served from an ad network), greatly reduced cross-site tracking, and the
risk of exposure to malicious ad content is much reduced.

Occasionally you run into a poorly coded site that fails to render because
facebook or twitter didn't return what it expected, but for the most part it's
a good compromise between extremes of wide open and noscript.

~~~
distances
I used to use RequestPolicy too. Then I found uMatrix, which simply has a much
better representation for this, and allows finer control
(cookie/image/css/plugin/script/XHR/frame). I suggest you to try it out.

As for the setup, I made it accept all first-party content, and images+css
from third parties, and block everything else by default. Then you play the
"guess the source" game for a couple of scripts that you as RequestPolicy user
are already familiar with :)

~~~
GrinningFool
Thanks, I'll take a look

------
JustSomeNobody
It costs me twice to see an ad. It costs me time to look at it (and possibly
interact with it), which is fine because that's what actually pays for the
site. However, the ads are costing me again because they are using too much of
my limited data (esp on mobile). Sure, I don't go over my allotment usually,
but it does prevent me from using that data somewhere else.

The advertisers need to figure out the latter in order for the ads to continue
to be a viable revenue stream.

------
elcapitan
I use ad blockers for all these reasons (safety, speed, readability), but also
as a selective tool for often-visited web pages to remove parts of the website
that i find distracting. For example I remove the divs of comment sections on
news pages, irrelevant side bars with distracting features etc.

Edit: In particular also annoying navigation elements like gigantic top bars
that stick to the browser top. I have a Macbook 11" and this have made many
websites way more readable.

------
alltakendamned
Everyone on this thread categorising the question as FUD should read up on the
Same Origin Policy of the browser and the context in which embedded javascript
gets executed.

Definitely enough room for malicious behaviour.

Also, the threat does not just include ads, but the fact that too many a
developer is very happy of pulling in 10+ 3rd party javascript libraries into
their web application, effectively exposing their web application to risk in
case one of these 3rd parties gets compromised.

------
goalieca
I've seen many cases of payloads being delivered through 3rd party ad
networks. I also despise how ads will track users. Those are my two top
reasons.

------
fweespee_ch
> I use adblockers to just protect myself. Who else does it?

I use a javascript/flash/etc blocking plugin.

If people show me static advertising assets, I'm fine with that even if it
lets them track me a little. If people try to run software on my computer I'm
not comfortable with...that is a separate problem.

~~~
snehesht
If you are concerned about malware, the first thing you must do is to ditch
FLASH.

~~~
fweespee_ch
Yes, that is the purpose of the plugin. However, I need to use it rarely to
test something I've had to work on so I can't disable it 100% of the time.

------
fensterblick
I was convinced to install an ad blocker solely for the safety reasons. It is
the new antivirus.

------
hysan
I do. I'm the defacto tech support for most of my family and friends. The
amount of spyware, viruses, and questions of "This website is telling me I
have X problem!" type questions I've gotten over the past decade pretty much
forced my hand. I used to setup their computers without adblockers, but
decided to just install them by default a few years ago. It's cut down the
amount of support requests from a few per year to almost none. Personally, I
do whitelist sites I know to be safe and protect my privacy, but for everyone
else, it just saves me so much time that it's a no brainer.

------
soared
Pure FUD.

Find me an example of any widespread attack from ads alone. Find me one major
network (Oh wait, thats only adsense, FB, and bing) who allow anything
malicious.

Dynamic ads don't allow custom JS, and you thinking they do is ridiculous.

Sucking data out of people? That is FUD if I've ever seen it. You mean,
"collecting data"? Which some people have a problem with.

Your perspective is warped as hell, 80% of users don't care at all. The other
19% installed an adblocker and left it there. The 1% have noscript or JS
disabled and are overly worried about security concerns and paranoid about
data collection.

------
SadWebDeveloper
NoScript (+ Custom ABE rules for specific websites) + uBlock \- Basically all
external plugins like Java or Flash with Firefox

NoScript with ABE is pretty much what everyone needs but uBlock is there to
block most of the non-JS ads (and save some bw) and from malicious js ads on
the allowed ones but without enabling scripts most ads don't even run so
basically uBlock is almost doing nothing (in at least a year it only shows 4%
of request blocked so almost all the work is done by NoScript).

Still wishing someday to see NoScript on chrome.

------
supergreg
Is there a list of vulnerabilities one gets exposed to with these /immersive/
ads? Maybe making this problem more visible will help content owners stay away
from bad ads companies.

------
snehesht
I use uBlock, Ghostery to block all trackers and ads. Lately I have been
writing a DNS based blocker using Rpi, Most adblockers are as good as the list
they maintain.

I started blocking ads when I realized they are used to spread malware using
sites like adfly, bitly(in the beginning) ... then I got used to pages without
ads, it's difficult to go back from that.

------
feulix
I've developed some kind of blind spot for ads, so I'll accept them as long as
they don't track me. For blocking spying ads and invisible trackers, I'm using
Privacy Badger
([https://www.eff.org/privacybadger](https://www.eff.org/privacybadger))

------
moviuro
I use a lying DNS resolver where possible (my VPN, my home router). It
redirects any ad-stuff to an nginx server that happily replies "204 No
Content" to anything you ask it.

I had an adblocker at work until someone pushed a corporate admin-managed
Chrome on my machine and I can't install and adblocker anymore.

------
jlarocco
I use ad block because ads are annoying, invasive, don't add value, and are
immoral (i.e. the way they're disguised to look like real content, the way
they prey on ignorant people, install malware, etc.).

------
randomgyatwork
I've been using Ghostery (with everything blocked) on all my browsers for the
last couple of years.

I feel safer online and site tend to function better since I've started using
it.

~~~
Sir_Cmpwn
I would use caution with Ghostery. It's proprietary and closed source, which
is _really_ suspicious for privacy software, doubly so when you realize that
the company running it is in the advertising industry. It also phones home and
is not entirely clear about what it's sending. I'd suggest using uBlock Origin
instead.

~~~
Silhouette
_It also phones home and is not entirely clear about what it 's sending._

Are you suggesting that it does so other than to download library updates,
even if you have opted out of their data sharing (which is a single option on
the settings screen)? If so, please give details, because this is a common
allegation but I've yet to see anyone substantiate it.

 _I 'd suggest using uBlock Origin instead._

uBO is helpful if you're happy with the defaults, but it's horrendously
difficult to configure it or figure out what it's actually doing. This is
something AdBlock Plus/Edge were always much better at, whatever their other
limitations.

~~~
luxpir
Just to chime in with uMatrix by the same dev as uBO - it has always been the
'power-user' version to rival noscript etc. A much more 'open' solution.

------
amelius
Somebody should develop an AI approach to ad detection.

And then make a webbrowser that uses a shadow DOM to remove the ads without
the website noticing.

------
usermac
I just loaded AdBlock Ultimate 2.18 and wonder if this is legit/non-harmful?

------
gtf21
Mix of reducing annoyances, security and reducing required bandwidth.

------
return0
Mostly for speed. I don't consider the web safe anyway.

------
throwaway21816
I run an adblocker to protect myself from "the latest steroid taking GNC by
storm" and "This website sells apple products for cheap!". Its an eyesore and
ruins my user experience.

~~~
elbigbad
This is fine as those are clearly scams designed to separate you from your
money. But on the flip side you're missing out on the new skin treatment that
a stay at home mother found that takes 20 years of your face (doctors HATE
her). Hint: It's acai berry.

