I thought the following was already explained... The ads in question are strategically placed for the unsuspecting visitor to inadvertently click on the advertisement rather than what the visitor had intended. We all know what they are, we all know what the purpose is, and we all know their strategic placement is intended as a trick. The websites hosting these ads profit because it's another revenue-generating click. The vendors profit because it's a numbers game for them, a certain percentage of those inadvertent visits will result in a sale. And the unsuspecting visitor has just been duped. It all has that shell game/slight-of-hand flavor to it. Apparently some of you are perfectly okay with this game because you're savvy enough to know the difference -- more likely, you fell for the trick at one time and are more careful now. But here's the not so puzzling puzzle. Why would a software company whose business it is to help its customers guard against such kinds of trickery, locate their free version on websites that participate in similar trickery? You think you're downloading a particular program but in fact you're not. Sound familiar? So tedivm, there is no confusion here. It's an ethical question that you and your colleagues have surprisingly missed. The fact that you provide paid users with a different set of conditions for downloading Malwarebytes than you do for users of the free version does not help your case. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. "But hey, we're no different than anyone else..." Perhaps that should be the tag line that separates the Malwarebytes download button from the others.