On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:54:11 -0600
Drew Samson <netproz(a)q.com> wrote:
I was admittedly slow to learn this yet once I came to realize the
overwhelming majority of their $ is made by advertisers paying them
to be white-listed it seemed to me as if the fox was guarding the
hen-house. They made a name for themselves doing a great job blocking
ads yet to make $ in this effort they rely on advertisers paying
them. They are funded by the folks they help frustrate. This just
seems like a contradiction to me and rather than keeping tabs on how
well they are adhering to their original intent I just sought an
alternative and that's when I found uBlock Origin.
Whoa, that's a pretty serious conflict of interest. Sort of like a
protection racket. I think I'll pass, too.
My attitude to advertising on the web is that I'll allow it if it
doesn't track me. So, I put in place tracking blockers, and if ads get
through, then so be it. Advertising is what pays for the internet, so
as long as the ads are like TV ads, broadcast instead of targeted, I'll
pay the piper by letting it appear on my browser.
But very few ads get through if tracking is blocked, since all the
major ad marketers use tracking. I even get complaints that I have ad
blocking turned on at some sites, though I don't; I just don't allow
tracking (to the best extent I can).