as bob asked what programs, ads are you speaking about please post so TPTB can look
Given that most "authorities" (including MS and Dell) now reccommend running Ad-Aware &/or Spybot SD routinely, why is it that CNet (and other major web-based information outlets) still use marketing tools that are identified by these anti-malware applications as potentially harmful or at least undesireable?
To me, this fully undermines the credibility of CNet and similar web resources.
Yes, I understand the CNet and other "free" resources exist because of the revenues generated thru marketing and merchandizing activities. This is not objectionable. What is objectionalbe is that there are no clear and simple statements of what their practices are. Privacy statements are complex and rife with reference to third parties and conditional statements prefaced with "we may"...
Burdens to translate what is practice or what could result from marketing practices are squarely placed upon the user and are best illustrated by running the reccommended anti-malware applications.
CNet and it's parent organization should take a leadership role and insure that their practices are not routinely identified as potential malware methods. Privacy statement should be quite simple and state what thier practices will protect against (and not be interpretable in terms of what could occur).
The current industry standards for "disclosure" are patently disingenuous. Read most any privacy statement and see how the basic issues are obscured by the multiple conditional statements and reference to unamed partners and third parties. To me it's alarming and simply,obfuscation.
Trust and credibility are fundamental; To this user there is a current and significant mis-match, particulary from information resources where independent authoritiy & credibilty is proshould be implicit. Optimally, it should be up to the marketplace to address this, the only question is who will the leaders be?

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic