Not even close with the analogy. Unless the content is behind a paywall, it's "free". Want to make money? Charge access. If your content is THAT compelling, people will line up and hand you money. Using a backhanded revenue machine like ads that track me and violate my "anonymity" is beyond the pale. So, yes. If I arrive on your site and there is no paywall, I will gladly view said content without allowing ads. If there is a paywall and your CONTENT, not ads, is good, I will gladly pay. There are sites I do pay for. Willingly. Because there is nothing better. I still block ads on these sites.
You are free to ignore or block their ads. Sites may complain about blocking, but (almost?) none prevent it. But the sites are also free to put ads on their sites, why wouldn't they be, and how do you feel that this is "beyond the pale"? The people who run those sites are just trying to make a living in the same way that most popular media has tried to make a living for the past century.
But actively trying to disrupt how they make a living goes beyond that. Imagine a museum that has a donation box but where you can go in for free if you want. You don't have to donate, but gumming up the slot so no one else can donate either goes beyond being not thinking the museum is worth paying for (although, for some reason, you're in it) to not thinking it should be in business at all.
By arguing that instead of taking donations they should just charge admission, you're just rationalizing bad behavior.
It's more like a donation box that automatically takes money out of your pocket unless you are vigilant, with most patrons not noticing that it took their money. The analogy sort of fails because it's not a zero sum gain. You could actually argue that targeted ads are a benefit to users.
I glady pay for Internet access, cable TV, the cinema, magazines, other content I view. The problem I have is with tracking. Ads should never do anything save show an ad. There should be no attempt to learn about me or track me or sell my data. Magazines I buy don't track me. I ignore ads in the cinema by whiling away that time on my mobile, I FF thru DVRd programs at home. I've paid already. I'm not viewing your dreck.
Working in technology, you probably make a lot of money. Could be wrong. $5 a month probably means more to the general population.
Personally, I feel far less privacy when making online payments and giving out my credit card or trusting some middle provider than I do when visiting a site that has ads which I can disable.
So you don't mind ads as long as they are completely random ads that you may not care about. But if they try to get some info about you to show ads that you might actually be interested in, then you are pissed? What!? What do you think they are doing with this information? All they are doing is catering ads to your preferences.
You raise an interesting point - that there is a tension between respecting the privacy of a user and making ads most useful to them.
That said, I don't think the rest of your post is well supported. Surely they are using the info to try and target ads, but what prevents them from using it in other ways (including selling it to other people who want to use it in other ways) if they think it can make them more money? Probably, most of these companies aren't going to knowingly sell it to anyone who will use it illegally because they could be culpable... but there are probably things I don't want done to me that don't involve actual illegality. An example off the top of my head might be feeding embarrassing info to a tabloid. And even that stays out of the realm of "what if things really went bad?"
What you cite as "my preference" is really "what the advertising backend has deduced I'm most likely to buy" - that's certainly better for the advertising company, very likely better for whoever's receiving revenue from showing the ads (averaged over all users because yes, targeted ads do work better), but it's not actually _better_ for me. From my point of view as someone who didn't actually want to spend any money, it's worse, because I'm now more likely to spend the money.
Bullshit. There are hundreds of extensions that block third-party cookies and any form of tracking; what we are talking about here is hurting any content creator who wants to monetize their content without creating a paywall and therefore dealing with customers, chargebacks, credit card fraud, marketing, ads (the irony).
No one is advocating anything except not tracking users. I already block ads like most people here. They are a vector for malware, they track users, they sell that data.
Make money by charging for content. I miss the old days when people had to pay for stuff with tangible money, not with their anonymity. I would gladly pay to access content I found useful, just no tracking. Be content with the money and move on. No need to profile me, sell my profile to make more money. I pay to use several sites. I also block ads on these site, because the third parties don't respect privacy.
I don't use the software in question. I only use AdBlock Plus and some creative OS-side tweaks under Linux to accomplish what I need. I don't need to use the software to go after ad companies.
I repeat myself: Its extremely naive to believe everyone who needs access to the content in the internet has a credit card to pay for every bit of it that they need.
First, not all ads attempt to track you or sell your data.
Second, it sounds like you would be well served by an ad blocker. Is there some reason why that's not enough and you have to actively try to destroy ad-supported sites?
