The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
That argument only holds if the ads have an effect - i.e. they make me spend money on some service or product. If I am presented for a hundred ads in, say, Thai, it is just a waste of bits and pixels - it makes no sense to me. It is just garbage. So I want it off my screen.
Same with US companies selling US products/services on the US market: Even though I can read the English words, I would never have any reason to react to the ad. So it is garbage, in a similar way.
You could say "But the news site gets paid for throwing a pile of garbage on your doorstep" - it is none of their business that it is of no intererst to you". Nevertheless, all that garbage annoys me. I can't even consider it product/market "information"; it is not avilable to me.
My reactions to "relevant" ads are quite different from all those irrelvant ads. Proposals like "People who bought that product you are looking at, also bought so-and-so" may actually be fine.
Also, I think paying for access to news articles is fine. But I see references to at least fifty different news sites a day, maybe a hundred over a week. I cannot pay a hundred subscriptions! But if there was some sort of syndication, maintaining a single account for me, and whenever I read an article on one of the syndicated news sites, a small amount (half a USD? one USD for in-depth articles?) would be charged to this account. But I see not traces of such a mechanism coming up.
But I ask myself: Why don't we have browsers that pretend (to the web site) that they show the ads, but simply "forget" to display them on the screen? It would certainly be technically possible to return exactly the same response to the web site, whether the ad was displayed or not.
That works for some but more and more sites have gotten wise to the tactic. Instead they load a single screen's worth of content so it LOOKS like the real article and then slap an overlay on the top. If you disable the overlay (or just delete it using dev tools in Chrome) you discover that the rest of the content was never actually provided.
I have so many items in my hosts file that some sites refuse to load as a result. I'm constantly renaming that file to _hosts, using the web site, and then renaming it back to hosts to block other stuff that may come along. Not ideal but it suffices.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
I think ads have a place however there is a point where, for me,they make a site unreadable.
Flashing, moving brightly coloured ads on the left and right of a screen when I am trying to read text in the centre of the screen makes it impossible for me to take in any information. Quite literally I am unable to read some pages as I am unable to filter out the ads(particularly animated/video ads) down the sides of the pages.
It's a bit like how I am unable to concentrate in noisy offices or when people are loudly banging their cereal bowls in the office.
Perhaps it's just me but a simple couple of ads at the top and perhaps bottom of a page is plenty and not distracting.
So I use an ad blocker not to remove reasonable ad displays but to remove what, to exaggerate a little, I consider a form of visual abuse.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”