>"Don't mind me, I'm just running uBlock

Feels good, doesn't it

>>61798013
Hey, I use this as well! Pretty comfy, fa.m

Feels good desu.

Can you believe there's retards that were recommended uBlock Origin, but downloaded uBlock instead.

If you can guarantee me you will never serve malvertising on your website, I will turn it off. I think that's a simple request.

You must also be responsible for reimbursement of damages caused by any infections.

>>61798367
This

You're coming at this from the wrong angle, you have to think of the website creator's perspective
>Don't mind me, just working voluntarily and for free while intentionally disrupting progress to get paid from a third party.
>What's that, my employer is having people keep an eye on me so I don't cause any more trouble? Oh no! How will I be able to earn money now?
Ads are neither a guaranteed way of getting money, nor are they ever positive for the visitor. You are willingly harming your visitors' experience and losing potential customers just to make a quick buck, and then you have the audacity of thinking that they shouldn't be allowed to deny you your adbucks.

>>61798335
People like that make me want to throw my PC out a window.

>>61798367
unless you're running IE6 on an unpatched XP installation circa 10 years ago you're not getting malware just from looking at ads, you have to actually click the ad and then install the software yourself

>>61798631
Not quite true. There's been several cases of .jpeg code injections. In fact the same attacks are still available because the format hasn't changed.

File: 170612.annoyingads.jpg (490KB, 1200x856px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 1200x856px

>>61798013
>don't mind me, just shilling ads

>>61798631
You shouldn't NEED to run a locked down fortified browser to surf the net.

Anyone that serves ads that act as viruses should be prosecuted for violating the NAP and be barred from the internet.

>>61798631
t. someone who hasn't read flash or browser patch contents for the past 10 years

>>61798335
What's the difference?

>>61798741
The JPEG format itself is not at fault, the vulnerability would reside in the software that displays the JPEG. As far as I am aware such a large exploit does not exist in any modern browser or image viewer, and if all it required was placing an image on the page then adblockers wouldn't do anything anyway.

>>61799770
You don't need to anymore because noone works on malicious ads like that anymore as all the affected systems are decades old, and everyone just uses google ads these days.

>>61799807
I don't use flash because it's not 2007

>>61800005
>The JPEG format itself is not at fault, the vulnerability would reside in the software that displays the JPEG. As far as I am aware such a large exploit does not exist in any modern browser or image viewer, and if all it required was placing an image on the page then adblockers wouldn't do anything anyway.
What is trust?

ublock_origin
a.k.a common_sense_2017

File: image.jpg (4KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x57px

I can't find any download links for extra ram since installing ublock origin.
Is this because it's incompatible with downloaded ram?
Is this means ublock origin botnet?

>>61798592
Do it, faggot! You might actually hit and kill a couple with it.

>>61799934
Absolutely nothing