"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs."

- Banksy

The way I see it, advertisers have violated any implicit bargain by adding the spying and surveillance aspect.

The traditional billboard or TV-ad is not part of a global system that creates a personal dossier of everything you view, how long you view it, and everyone who might be friends you viewed or shared it with you, and what groups that forms, etc.

Basically no consumer anywhere is going into it with informed consent--and they've planned it that way.

Maybe "content creation" shouldn't be a day job? Maybe "content creators" should get real productive day jobs while the space is open for the creators who do it out of passion and love... for free and without ads? What if some of the high cost of goods we're seeing right now is due to too many non-productive consumers (middle managers, service workers, "content creators," etc.) at the expense of not enough producers (people taking things out of the ground and converting them to useful goods)?

Maybe strong anti-advertising laws are in order? No accepting pay to parrot a message, or at least heavily taxing such arrangements if allowed? IMO the only place I should ever see an ad is when I go to some YellowPages directory, like plumber ads when I look up plumbers. There should be a Nutrition Facts like description of costs, service or product description, etc, in lieu of pretty art and slogans for us thinkers. Never should I see an ad on random web pages, billboards, newspapers, entertainment media, etc. Imagine the ills banning advertising would reduce... like the data surveillance & brokering industry!

With AI I am reconsidering my stance on micropayments.

I recently loaded up a few dollars on Deepseek to try it out, and the value I got out of it far surpassed my balance lost (tens of cents). If this is a sustainable business model for Deepseek (I'm not sure yet), then this shifts the economics: in this scenario I feel totally fine paying pocket change for something valuable.

We already know google's searches cost orders of magnitude less than serving an AI model, so there is no reason to believe micropayments couldn't work there too. Of course, advertisements make Google a lot more money than micropayments, so they never tried it, but I suspect that while they might not work in all scenarios they are underexplored as a monetizing strategy.

I feel like website owners could band together and along with search engines figure out tiers for people viewing their content (free, minimal fee, larger fee, etc).

And some publishers would choose that, others would form different coalitions and say: get a subscription and you get access to xyz content, just like with streaming etc. It would need cooperation, so maybe the idea is already dead in the water, but the web being the realm of advertising is not set in stone.

Yeah this is a pain. Good people who do good work and aren't responsible for figuring out some micropayments ecosystem for the rest of us are reliant on advertising.

Adblocking is basic security now. I gladly pay for quality services.

> When you block abusive ads (as opposed to all ads), advertisers are encouraged to make their ads less abusive.

Ads were made abusive, malicious, and dangerous WELL before ad blockers existed. Ad blockers are a response to abusive, malicious, and dangerous advertising. Sadly there are very few reliable ways to whitelist trustworthy advertising. Google and Facebook et al. have all served harmful advertising at some point.

It's too late to turn this around. All trust is lost with advertisers, and to be honest, I'm not sure a system based on trust was ever going to work anyway. Content creators must now create new ways to derive value from their work. Perhaps we go back to an internet where people wrote blogs and posted pictures not for money, but as a hobby. I think that was a better internet.

No. We need to think in other ways than the ad economy. I’d gladly pay for good content if there was a decent system set up for it.

I care about having a general purpose web content blocker. I use it for blocking all kinds of things that aren't ads, like YouTube comment sections, random noisy useless cruft I don't care about, etc.

No. All ads, and I mean all ads, must be blocked. Our children must be raised to hate the product and brand that is shoved in their faces by an advertisement. I already keep mental notes of what ads I see alot and never, ever expend money on those brands or products. The fastest way to get me to never ever buy your brand, product, or service is to show me ads for it, and I want to spread my thought process to others so you have to actually make something decent that can spread word-of-mouth... rather than something to advertise.

There are multiple standarss for better advertisements[1][2] and AdBlock Plus introduced "acceptable ads" whitelisting if your ad meets one of the criteria.[3] Consumers do not want this and this "acceptable ads" policy is what caused the shift from AdBlock Plus to uBlock Origin.

I'd rather the government sponsor a roundtable between advertisers/browser manufacturers to discuss coming up with a legally protected "acceptable ads" programme to be enforced by default without causing antitrust problems.

[1] https://www.betterads.org/standards/

[2] https://www.acceptableadscommittee.org/the-standard/

[3] https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads

> without it they won't produce quality content.

If the content would be really high quality and exceptional, people would pay for it. But if it close to something people publish even without ads, then they don’t pay for it.

I’d be happy for a content producer wide subscription that would disable ads on all participating sites. As long as that doesn’t exist, I’m happy with my adblocker.

Next to that, my device, my choice what I get to see and what I don’t get to see.

No. I will not discriminate between which ads I block when neither the site operators nor the ad networks discriminate on what they host. The moment i turn off my ad block I’m up to my eyeballs in lies and scams and garbage. No. Thanks.

This ad funded internet needs to die. It is rotten to the core and advertising is the source of almost all the evils of the modern web. As long as enough of the general public continues to not Adblock I’ll enjoy my free ride.

If I allocated proportionally pieces of $5 to my favorite content producers a month they would get orders of magnitude more than what they get from me watching ads.

I hate ads, I hate the experience of having something in between me and what I want to do, having random images sent through my eyeballs, etc. So no, not everyone wins with advertising.

Google et al make more money (or at least think they do) through advertising and eschew micropayments for this reason, but that doesn't make micropayments unprofitable. And I don't want things for free if it means watching ads.

I wish that were true

Firefox was a mainstream browser. After it stopped being one, it did what all the other browsers did: bake adblock within. Even now they do so with trepidation.

"Firefox blocks many types of advertising at the network level. It uses a filter list based on EasyList to block many ads before they load."

I guess still all DNS it seems? For which NextDNS is much more useful.

Same, if anyone figures out what the about:config toggle for this is (does that exist on Firefox iOS or is that a missing feature like how Firefox iOS is missing every other feature?), please share it so I can consider finally moving back from Orion and its myriad bugs and quirks.

Ads are bad! Blocking ads on our own homepage? How do you expect us to keep the lights on?

The correct way to avoid ads is to not visit pages that use them.

> Sponsored content on the Firefox Home or New Tab page

Not ideal, but (at least on desktop) you can set the Home page to a blank page, and there is an extension called 'Blank New Tab' that I've been using for quite a while.

> You can manage the sponsored content on the Firefox Home and New Tab page in your Homepage settings.

Mozilla knows not to bite Google’s hand, who is the one that actually feeds them hundreds of millions of dollars.

This feels like a place where the "yet you also participate in society" comic fits.

It doesn't have those limitations on Windows or Android, so it must be an Apple requirement or limitation.

"better than nothing"