As for your little quip about WSJ links. Do you mean this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10015496 ?
> I can't read the article because its paywalled
I never asked for a "workaround". Honestly the only reason I wanted to see the article is to identify if the article is as ridiculous as the title implied, so why would I buy a subscription for a publisher that puts out shit like that?
1) Relevance. Take your cooking website example, say if that recipes has chicken in it. Then the magazine method can show you an ad about local supermarket for you to buy chicken. Then how do they know if you "probably" prefer walmart or wholefoods or local farmer's market? What if you are an organic guy? (which means you probably prefer wholefoods) Traditional magazine method doesn't make the result relevant enough for today's online advertising standard.
2) Feedback. As a brand who wanna do an online campaign, how do I know if my advertisement works? Today's advertiser no longer count on clicks, they count on impression. They don't need you to click to ad. They just want to make sure you see it. How do they if you didn't block to ad? How do they know if you didn't go to other tabs when their 15 second youtube ad is playing? That means at least 1 additional request send out from your browser. Usually it's more because they wanna know if you watched half of the video or the whole video. Things above don't have to be done with tracking you profile, but the other things does. For example, how to the advertisers know if they reach their target audience? If I'm selling the new mustang how do I know if I show the ad to ford people instead of chevy people? It's called on target percentage and it's one of the top metrics advertisers care about.
3) Availability. In many situations, there's just no ad available that actually relevant to the content. Then it's better for advertisers to show you something that may relevant to you instead of something completely random or no ad at all.
Your magazine method has works for decades doesn't mean it will continue to work in the future. Does magazine itself still work?
BTW, when I raise the WSJ thing I didn't target you specifically and I have no idea you had that comment you posted before. But as you said, you (and probably most people) won't pay for subscription for such ridiculous publication. Then advertisement is the way for you to read it freely so you can identify if the article is ridiculous or not. Or maybe just don't read it and comment by title?
A site can just as easily say "show me ads for <page specific tags> as hard-coded "recipes", and knowing where I shop just goes into the creepy factor even more.
But forget all that - your suggestion, to avoid a tracking cookie from the various companies in what is frankly an industry with a terrible track record for doing the right thing, is to use the NAI "don't track me" "feature"... Which requires that I accept cookies from any domain and let them put a cookie on my device?
Are you aware of how stupid I would have to be, to believe that works?
I find it really hard to communicate with you because before we even start this discussion you seems already tagged the entire ad industry as an "evil empire" who try to steal your personal information all the time. The ad industry is not an angle for sure. It's just a business that try to make money, like any other business. Intentionally ruin people's life is not the interest of any mature business. Believe or not, doing things that make people hate ads is the last thing the ad industry wants. Because the more everyone hate ads, the less effective those ad campaigns will be, and the less ad companies get paid. Most of the problems with ads today are not introduced in favor of anybody, it's just not as easy as you might think to find a overall better way. Do you recall how many years it has been for people to actually produce a practical substitution for gas engine since everyone realize it's messing up our planet?
In the end, I'm interest to hear your vision on how to fund high quality online contents today without the profit of targeted advertisement.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a fucking duck. The Ad industry doesn't try to steal peoples information all the time, they successfully create very detailed profiles on people. You yourself admitted this when claiming that "only targeted advertising is effective".
> So I'm pretty sure that opt-out feature works.
...for the ad networks who are members of NAI and who abide by its guidelines... by requiring a cookie on every device I use, and requiring that every device is set to allow third-party cookies, which further increases the chances for me to be tracked online.
Ad this point, I don't need to demonstrate the shady practices of the ad industry - they do that well enough by themselves.
I don't care if you work for an ad company, and frankly I don't care if the adoption of content blocking software causes your employer to go out of business and you to lose your job. You chose to work for that company, knowing full-well what they do.
The ad industry made choices about how it would operate its business, and is now paying the consequences. Same goes for you, as an individual.
I don't want "targeted" "relevant" ads related to what I wrote on Facebook yesterday or what I googled last Tuesday. Ever. I'll just have to live with whatever content people can afford to show me without such ads. I really don't feel sorry for any ad network or any site that used them.
If ads make money based on click-throughs and purchases, then my blocking them has zero change in revenue generated. If they are simply displaying for brand awareness (less common on the web) then sure I'm having a minor impact but given that ads often ruin content enough to close the window (recent example being a floating banner covering half my screen and thus making article unreadable) I doubt there is positive brand impact anyway.