"We would only improve the internet by striking back against giant, centralized ad serving systems. How anyone could honestly defend cross-site targeted ads is beyond me. Do they improve anyone's browsing experience? Do they honestly make all that much money for the sites that run them? For the businesses that pay for them?"

Very important question I don't see asked a lot. Of course there was an article a while back that suggested that it would get way worse before it got better.

I find it really disturbing that Mozilla sides with this view that ads make the web possible. Who can blame them? They owe pretty much the majority of thier early funding and promotions to Google who was getting referrals in exchange. So the hard truth is Mozilla used and still uses ads to fund Firefox development.

Could they have thrived without doing referrals? Would the web be worse off if they never took off? Would the world be worse off if the Web stagnated? Who could know?

I despise the "wrong side of internet" argument. It feels pretty childish and I quit reading after your TL;DR.

you mean "wrong side of history"?

I don't think you quite understand what's controversial about the current concern over ad-blocking. You miss the point that Apple is using ad-blocking as a business decision to make traditional ad-supported monetization harder for Google et al., forcing the publications and websites who use traditional advertising platforms away from the internet, and onto app stores, where ad-blocking is more difficult.

To write off the entire controversy as "foolish" is irritating because this article is completely ignorant to any nuance beyond "ad blockers let you disable ads." Yes, but who is doing the ad-blocking? Which ads are being blocked? Are all ads treated equal? Is ad-blocking being done as an imperative, or as a means of control?

@strgrd Apple's behavior is a big part of the story, yr right. tho I think it's a separate controversy, honestly, more related to walled gardens and cult of apple BS. maybe my point is that as long as government doesn't get involved, the rest will sort itself out according to free market economics.

When was the last time free market economics 'sorted out' anything? I'd like to know. Interesting to me that despite our comments that you've read, your initial blog remains unchanged or has any mentions of this feedback. But if you really truly believe moving all ads to a handful of platforms is 'sorted' then make a case for it. What would it improve?

Agreed:

> if your website can't make money without crappy ads, and nobody looks at your crappy ads because of advances in technology, then blaming that technology puts you squarely on the wrong side of history.

However, GOOG would face quite a user backlash if they tried to go with some anti-ad-blocker policy. Not only would they tarnish their brand more, but they would chase more to DuckDuckGo and other service alternatives.

verr troo, tho the way lobbying works I'm not sure they'd even need to be directly involved with the policy.

> The creator of peace, one of the most popular iOS ad blocking apps, just pulled his app after a day and a half because it "didn't feel right" to him.

We assume he was paid off.