By: James (no.delete@this.thanks.invalid), April 20, 2012 4:01 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Foo_ (foo@nomail.com) on 4/20/12 wrote:
>The irony is that most of Phoronix' target audience probably use an ad blocker,
Or NoScript: on a lot of sites (including Phoronix, by the sound of it), the site itself works fine with NoScript turned on, but the adverts rely on Javascript.
The end users, seeing the information they wanted in a plausible format, are not inclined to turn on scripting. They may not even realise that NoScript is acting as an ad blocker, and the advertising agency is more likely to supply malicious Javascript than the site itself.
>The irony is that most of Phoronix' target audience probably use an ad blocker,
Or NoScript: on a lot of sites (including Phoronix, by the sound of it), the site itself works fine with NoScript turned on, but the adverts rely on Javascript.
The end users, seeing the information they wanted in a plausible format, are not inclined to turn on scripting. They may not even realise that NoScript is acting as an ad blocker, and the advertising agency is more likely to supply malicious Javascript than the site itself.



