Hb1hf [...] makeuseof [...]™shows up in my uBO running scripts from 18 different domains. If I allowed all, they each might call additional domains, and we could be running scripts from 30 domains. some of them might be malicious.
The claim that some of them might be malicious is irrefutable. My next-door neighbor might be an axe murderer (we know axe murderers exist).
What's the likelihood?
As "cancerous" as makeuseof might seem, you might want to give it the benefit of the doubt. But any of those 30 domains could be compromised by an external actor, and be running rogue scripts.
Irrefutable.
Hb1hf So, do you run a malware analysis on every single site/script you run while browsing?
If there is a population of people who are blocking ads served by makeuseof because malware analysis reveals that on average they serve one piece of malware per {minute, hour, day, week}, that makes sense.
If there is a population of people asserting everybody should block ads served by makeuseof without presenting any data on how often they contain malware, that is interesting.
Hb1hf Or have any concrete evidence to show everything you access is clean?
Fundamentally, concrete evidence of malware is possible, but concrete evidence of absence is not. So evidence of how often makeuseof serves malware in ads would be welcome.
Then it would be possible to evaluate what fraction of that malware would be successful against Vanadium.