Sorry, i edited my reply a little late:

Even if the internet had no ads and no tracking code and no malware anywhere whatsoever, there would still be a need for the technology to block and change the way in which my computer handles the things sent to it by other computers before showing them to me. I have a myriad blocks and css modifications and even site additions and other things set up that have absolutely nothing to do with ads, and being able to do that reliably is important.

That is why this matters:

Controlling what my own mechanical device does with the information it receives from other people's machines.

Besides, as i said, i don't even use pornhub.

Heck, a number of sites i use this stuff on are sites where i pay profusely. My steam expenses are 6000$ at this point, and i block a lot of things there, primarily because they actually make it more difficult for me to find the things i want to spend money on.

If sites made it clear that your patronage while stripping out ads was unwelcome, would you voluntarily stop using all those websites...? Or would you hide behind the "running on my machine" argument while gleefully skimming their content?

I stop visiting websites that prevent me from seeing any content if I'm using an ad blocker. Wired, for example. I was never an avid reader of Wired but they do publish some interesting content and I would find myself reading maybe three or four articles a month. Since they made it clear that people blocking ads are no longer welcome on their site I stopped clicking on Wired links.

I know there are ways around such blocks but I don't bother using them. If a site prevents me from seeing its content if im blocking ads I close the page and make a mental note to not click on links to that site anymore.

I'm not "hiding" behind anything, and trying to imply I am doesn't help your argument.

I probably would stop using that site, I think it's important to support sites that make meaningful progress possible. But again, that doesn't really have any impact on my decision to make sure foreign code doesn't run on my machine.

If a bus made it clear that not reading every ad on it to its fullest extend was unwelcome, would you stop riding the bus?

Yes.

If sites make it clear, i stay out or pursue alternatives they offer. For example i don't use bild.de. And for other sites i've started contributing to payment schemes like Patreon. Mobile apps i often by the upgrade to remove ads, even though i can just block them altogether.

That's good for you! The truth is that most people don't do that at all. I feel that either we need to pay for content or ad companies need to sponsor us for the content. If some sites have terrible ads it's really not that hard to just not go there.

I think that'll come over time. Right now the problem is that the "value" of a page view is far below a single dollar, and paying so little in a way that isn't negated by the costs is very hard to solve still. At the same time full-on subscriptions often don't make sense if you're just gonna look at a certain site a handful of times per year.

Patreon is a big step towards fixing that, since it allows me to pay small amounts to people whose work i enjoy very occasionally. It is however not the end game yet, and i think if that path is pursued further, ads can become a part of the past.

Also the "just don't go there" thing is hard to do in reality. If only because to find out that a site is bad, you need to first go there. Then there's the cost of remembering in the future that the site is bad. Then there's the social cost of getting linked to a thing. etc. etc. etc.

Am I supposed to find every single website I might ever visit in the future and preemptively pay for their no-ads plan? How is that the answer? What about sites which don't offer such a plan?

And why should people who can't afford to pay, or wish to not have their money benefit someone, be forced to be opened up to security exploits?

"Am I supposed to find every single website I might ever visit in the future and preemptively pay for their no-ads plan? How is that the answer? What about sites which don't offer such a plan?"

Honestly this really is the problem and honestly when I first read it I thought you were arguing against ad blockers. Having to have subscriptions is ridiculous, which is why ad supported really is the only currently realistic model for the majority of the internet. Everyone seems to be so concerned with security so instead of reaching for the nuclear option of just not paying people who provide us content why don't we actually think about how to make them safer? What would an ad network have to do to make you allow them through an ad blocker?

> What would an ad network have to do to make you allow them through an ad blocker?

There's absolutely nothing they can do. If I can hide ads by any means, I will do so. I absolutely hate them. They slow down page loading and rendering, they slow down my browser, and they're tacky and distracting. I a few options:

1. A system of micropayments so I can pay cents or fractions of a cent for page views, ad-free.

2. Blocking content as well if an ad blocker is detected. I'm fine with this; my stance is that if you send me data in response to a GET request, I can do anything I want with that data, including stripping out portions I don't want to see. If you block the content when detecting I'm blocking ads, that's fine; I'll accept that and not try to circumvent it (and will likely just do without your content).

3. A general (monthly-subscription-type) paywall. I'm unlikely to pay for this, as there are few (no?) sites I read often to justify the expense, so I'd again just do without.

And I think that's the thing: there are enough people who don't block ads that they're apparently still profitable enough that sites that would prefer to charge for content can't see doing so as a viable business model. I look forward to the day when selling advertising is no longer viable, and something like my #1 idea takes hold.

Suggesting that it's immoral or unethical to block ads is just hogwash.

Stop trying to make "allowing ads" equivalent to "paying creators". It's not in any way the same thing, and it's just an attempt to paint everyone who disagrees with you with a big brush of "asshole".

I have criteria for this:

1. No videos, flashing animations, pop-overs, pop-unders or audio. Ever.

2. I WILL tolerate text, links, and moderately sized images.

3. No building a dossier on me. I may allow tasteful ads but I will still block trackers and analytics with extreme prejudice.

Google Contributer lets you do that given they handle the micro payments on your behalf to publishers. I would definitely subscribe to it and at least not block double click': network if you are annoyed by ads like I am.

Who are these people being "forced" to use pornhub?

I don't remembering mentioning forcing people to visit particular sites, I remember talking about telling people they weren't allowed to ever block ads. I also don't remember saying this was unique to pornhub, or mentioning pornhub in any way.

You'd be served ads before you logged in.

You can serve the ads all you want. You're trying to make people _display_ them. There's a huge difference.