Flyertalk.com now blacklisted as spam domain
 

Is this because of the ads? I cannot access FT from work anymore because our web filter (which I gather is a fairly common one) now has flyertalk.com blacklisted as a spam domain. IB really needs to get a handle on this, or they're going to lose folks even quicker than they're already losing them.

Very likely because of this. Several public PC I used have FT on their blacklist (ironically in airlines lounges).

We use Forcepoint (formerly known as Websense).

Talk to your companies IT people. IB has not put FT on your companies spam list. But (bad) add's may be the trigger.
Try getting to FT via a google search. That can sometimes bypass company filters.

I'm not suggesting that IB put FT on the spam list. I am wondering whether the many malicious ads it constantly hosts, however, has triggered Forcepoint/Websense to block the domain as a protective measure. Our IT people will not unblock a site marked as spam/malicious (rightfully so).

From time to time, FT is listed as malicious by whatever screening software is used in the GC at LHR.
FT was listed as malicious by whatever screening software was used in the third party lounge at ABZ
I do remember an AA lounge in the USA also, MSY if my memories serves me well.

Are you suggesting FT contact those lounges and ask them to remove them as they are a legit site that just happens to have bitcoin mining within its ads as well as personal data fishing through ads ?

I also recall clearly the BBC was blacklisted in a number of airline lounges.

Are these statements of yours facts or allegations? Is it FT mining bitcoin etc. or the advertisers? Does FT legally have control of what it’s advertisers do? These are questions I’m asking because I really don’t know.

Did I make any suggestions in my post?

It could be possible, technically, though I have no idea if Internet Brands would be interested in acting, for IB to contact providers of workplace filtering software to request removal from a blacklist (though I’m certain more than a few companies intentionally block what they see as leisure sites that interfere with workplace productivity). IMO, the most effective way to restore a non-malicious site blocked by an airline lounge, etc. is to make petition or complain to the owner or operator.

:)

Sorry, I was a bit rude in my post. It annoys me to see a great community tool (FT) being violated by IB to make revenue without ethical considerations, or even good business sense.
FT will have some legal responsibilities of what their advertisers do in a couple of weeks, with respect to personal data. This is a fact.

If they're doing things the right way, they should. I work on the other end of things as an advertiser. Our contracts with networks clearly spell out the kinds of sites we can be on, the kinds of other ads that they will and won't run, etc., because it's no good to us to be affiliated with a bad actor advertising network. We also do a ton of diligence on networks to make sure they're above board, and monitoring after we sign with them to make sure they're adhering to the contracts.

What SHOULD happen is that IB should have contracts with only reputable networks that they've thoroughly vetted, and those contracts should explicitly lay out the kinds of ads that can be served up, with an out if the network serves up bad traffic. The minute people report bad ads (as noted in the many, many pages of the bad-ad related thread), IB should be going back to those networks to either have them correct the issue, or they should be discontinuing business with them.

Unfortunately, IB has clearly made a decision that they're just going to go with whatever ad networks give them the most money, without particularly caring about the repercussions to its users or the site. The result is that the site is now being marked as a malicious domain. Perhaps if people can't access the site, that will hit them in the pocketbook and make them think about only doing business with more reputable ad networks.

I don't think the point being made is that IB should be contacting workplace filtering software providers to whitelist FT, the point is that IB should not be hosting malicious advertising. While some companies have overzealous IT departments that will filter out even the most innocuous sites, FT is probably not being blacklisted in error.

It has been clear for some time that IB/FT has an advertising contract with a fairly shady advertising network and while I don't think any black and white proof of bitcoin mining can be provided, the number of reports of excessive CPU usage on FT paired with a history of malicious advertising makes it likely. Especially when ad blocking software and bitcoin mining blockers rectify the CPU usage problem instantly.

To IB's credit, it seems like the malicious advertising and excessive CPU usage issues have diminished a great deal in the last month, perhaps the offending advertising contract expired, but I'm still not sure I'd whitelist FT until I was absolutely sure. Just looking at some of the current requests on this page, I see a couple tracking services that I would consider to be malicious being blocked automatically by my browser.

Well I had to use IE just now to post a reply as I cannot seem to at this moment in time with my ad blocking software. The site with ads is like a bill board. Heck they are not even subtle and are in your face, slow everything down, I don't know how anybody could use this site without an ad blocker. Anyway, perhaps it is coinicdence so we will see where this heads.

Edited to add that with ublock on, I cannot reply/edit and get to this box I am tryping in.

I have raised the issue with our ads-ops and tech people. Will update as any news comes in.