But if both sides say the burden of proof is on the other then no progress can be made.
On the other hand, if both sides investigate and try to provide additional data, whether comprehensive or not, then progress can be made. Maybe it won’t be perfect, but we might at least see a trend one way or another.
I wince over that every time I see the thread title. It’s like fingers on a blackboard.
:::gets up from his comfy seat, clicks a button or two, …poof!
You’re wishes are our commands.
[sub]Yeah, I know, I misspelled your/you’re. Can’t I have any fun?[/sub]
samclem Moderator
No. Cram you are fun up you are butt over they are.
Could I ask why we are discussing Rubicon again in a thread that was about another ad provider’s mistakes?
Also, has anyone considered the idea that the reason there aren’t other communities with complaints about malware is because most other communities don’t allow complaints at all? This was the first community I’ve seen where complaining about the administration does not get you the boot.
To find complaints, you may need to look offsite.
The WSJ article has already been mentioned. Last August, PC Magazine had an article about malware on 4chan. Something Awful was hit in 2008 and routinely has popover ads for nonpaying customers anyway. More generally about 1 million websites were affected by malware in Q2.
I periodically read about the risk of malware at 4chan and the advisability of adjusting javascripting at that site. That there apparently are few discussions there about the issue leads us to one irrefutable conclusion: the SDMB is highly tolerant of drama, more so than 4chan. I’m guessing that’s a side effect of fighting ignorance: most posters stay focused at the matter at hand, but the spirit of free inquiry here has the side effect of attracting Drama Meisters.
If we are unique in our malware problems among Rubicon clients, it obviously isn’t Rubicon, and cutting them off clearly won’t get rid of the problem. You seem to be arguing two mutually exclusive propositions; “Rubicon is the source of the problem, and should be terminated” and “Nobody else has a problem with Rubicon”. To use your restaurant analogy, you seem to be saying “This soup tastes like ass; and in such small portions too!”
Ed.
I’ve said repeatedly that I’ve tried to search out complaints on or regarding experiences at other communities and been unsuccessful. However, as I’ve observed, it’s hard to prove a negative. It’s possible that the complaints are out there and I’m just not seeing them, which is why I’m asking for proof that they exist.
Other communities I’ve posted in have allowed complaints. The site where I moderated even had a hilarious attempted movement against the mods, which IIRC nobody was banned or even censured over.
See, this is some useful stuff.
1.) The WSJ article talks about a general increase in malware.
2.) Are there more SA threads about malware, or was that an isolated incident? Is it a recurring problem or a one-time thing from two years ago that was dealt with?
2.) The 4chan malware article is about a type that requires action on the part of the user to infect their computer, versus what’s been happening here, where someone can be infected by just browsing.
You really aren’t reading my posts. Wow. Okay, I’ll attempt to clarify this for, what, the fifth time now?
The two “arguments” that you think I’m making simultaneously are what I see as the two possibilities. Do you understand it now? There are two potential things that are happening, which are mutually exclusive.
Option 1: Other sites aren’t seeing problems with malware because they are using more reputable ad providers, getting most of their revenue from merch, sourcing their own ads, etc. Solution: dump Rubicon and potentially move to a different system of generating revenue.
Option 2: Other sites aren’t seeing problems with malware, even though they are also using Rubicon. Solution: figure out why the SDMB particularly is being targeted by malvertising through Rubicon.
And, as I’ve mentioned before, there is also techinically:
Option 3: Other sites who use Rubicon are also getting hit with malware, but nobody notices or cares because the sites themselves are disreputable places where most people expect to get infected, such as free porn sites or scam sites.
These are not things that I think are happening at the same time, as I have explained to you repeatedly. If you persist in insisting that I am, I can only assume that you’re purposely ignoring everything I’m writing.
Option 3a: Other sites are getting hit with malware, but most of them aren’t making it known publicly because it would be bad for business. Most websites run by businesses aren’t about to tell you whether or not they are riddled with crap, period.
Yeah, because people on the internet are *so *notorious for staying quiet when a site is dumping malware on them. C’mon, Czarcasm. If any large community were serving up malware in its ads, there would be complaints about it, just as there are here–offsite, if there were no venue for them on the community itself. I highly doubt that there wouldn’t at least be some area to report technical issues, however, which would include malware coming from the site.