The reality is in fact very simple. Ultimately, the buck stops with Forbes. They're the ones who decided to serve ads, they've made the decision to do it without their oversight - so they're the ones to be held responsible if the ads start spreading malware.
It's publishers, not us, who can and should exert market pressure on ad networks to change.
Ultimately the buck actually stops with the end user. They're the ones who decided to ask a server outside of their control for any and all data it has stored at an address and then used it in a way harmed themselves. It very much is us who can and should exert market pressure on ad networks to change. The publisher, ad network, ad creator, any and all business, only exists to satisfy our needs and wants. We are the market not publishers.
Oh, but we do. We install ad blockers. That's the best way to exert that pressure from our side :).
> The publisher, ad network, ad creator, any and all business, only exists to satisfy our needs and wants. We are the market not publishers.
You'd wish. We are as much a market as dogs are the market for dog food. They're not, dogs don't have money. Dog food is marketed to human owners. And so it's publishers who are customers of ad networks.
>Oh, but we do. We install ad blockers. That's the best way to exert that pressure from our side :).
That's exactly what I meant haha. I find the constant barrage of news about how terrible ads are baffling. There's a very simple solution for end users and it's been around for a long time.
>They're not, dogs don't have money.
We do have money. That's what they want from their ads, our money. Don't view ads -> don't click ads ->don't spend money on advertised products -> problem solved.
It's publishers, not us, who can and should exert market pressure on ad networks to change.