I remember the web before ads became so prolific, and before it became so commercial. There was still content, people still cared about topics and put up web pages devoted to them. Without ads, it would still make sense for an individual to write a blog or a company to put up a page that allows others to search or purchase their products. IMDB started as a place to put information related to a usenet group (rec.arts.movies?), iirc.

Without ads, there would be a lot less "get rich quick" schemes and search engine fiddling. Websites that exist only to point to information scraped from other websites and wrap them in ads would disappear. If a web site created by some lone coder started to explode in audience size and bandwidth costs, they could go the donation route. I already donate to some sites that provide content I like. I think we would end up with quality over quantity when it came to finding information, and that's probably a good thing.

So I'm right there with you. I don't care how someone's business model is going for them. I block ads because they've been out of control since before the "punch the monkey" stage came around years ago.

This. I still generally find that the really excellent deep content on the Internet is written by people doing it out of passion, not out of trying to make a living from it. Are there exceptions? Of course! Stuff like Rock Paper Shotgun exists and I really enjoy reading that, or TopGear magazine on iOS gets my digital subscription e-dollars, but most of the articles that I really spend time on are small personal hobby blogs or forums.

Content that exists to make profit for the authors is rarely worth the cost of ads IMO. Let them die.

I remember before the proliferation of ad-supported content, people used to just charge for content.

Back during the late 90s, early 2000s, many forums used to have paid membership programs.

If content is desired, even if its user created, you can charge for the platform users interact on.

I think you represent the opinion about 90% of ad-blocking users, me included.

Would you care for some side money that you can use for micro-transaction (one click for: paywalls, items in games, rewarding a blog author?)

(doing market research here)

Would you care enough to make the switch to another ad-blocker? One that pays you to rent your pixels if the ad is deemed fast, non intrusive, non tracking, not attention grabbing, not misleading, for a sufficiently ethical product, etc.

There's a perverse incentive there. If I'm paid to watch adverts, and my love for money outweighs my hatred for adverts, then I'll watch lots of adverts without actually buying anything. That's great for the ad-provider, but not so much for whoever's products are being advertised, as they'll be getting a significantly worse return on their investment. It's actually in their interests for me to block adverts if I won't buy anything that's advertised in them.

What you're proposing is that if I see some ads, then I get virtual money that I can then forward to someone I deem worthy?

In theory, it seems a nice idea. Sharing ad profits from my views with someone who creates good content. Sure.

I'm not quite sure I'd care enough, but maybe.

I think you are the majority, your opinion on this anyway. Too many people are afraid to say this publicly.

I personally do care about the small authors, and for that I will disable my ad blocker if I come across a small site with ads but I also won't go out of my way to do so.

I come from "web 1.0" or really "beta web" pre 1995 & BBS days so the web we live on right now is / was our nightmare back then.

> I don't care - there would be some other search engine that works without ads.

Why don't you go there then? Go on duck duck go, go on any website that don't show ads. Most of the time, you won't find one because that's just impossible to achieve, there just so much cost associated with hosting a good quality website that it's even hard to achieve only on ads.

Whatever will you answer is the reason why you should care. That exist because ads exist. I don't feel like giving 2-3$ to every website I visit, even if I actually have that money and way to pay it (which I literally couldn't do when I was younger, but you probably didn't lived that).

Nothing is free on this planet, literally nothing. Don't expect the web to be either.

Sure, it's hard, but again - I don't care. I can use an ad blocker, why should I not do it?

(it is very interesting how almost everyone in this thread assumes I'm young - I wouldn't count almost 40 as very young :) )

You should use an ad blocker because it gives you control over your browsing experience. You need that control because advertisers have made the web an unpleasant place. The thing is, we all need adverts. Think of all the products you've bought, that you wouldn't have known about without advertising. The issue isn't 'To block or not to block'. Everyone should block ads until advertisers learn to behave. As advertisers are unlikely to learn to behave voluntarily, it's up to ad-blockers, bloggers and news sites to start pushing advertisers in the right direction. Annoying ads, slow downloads and tracking all need to go. Bloggers should avoid the main offenders and work with advertisers that offer true unobtrusive ads, minimum downloads and that don't track. We need adverts, but more importantly, we need advertisers to play nice.

Your boss, costumer, whatever doesn't make enough money to pay you: I don't care.

Good for you - you shouldn't. I don't know you and will probably never meet you. You can't worry about everyone and everything :)

Somehow I agree with you (I even upvoted your main comment, it distils the sentiment of our generation), when the page is really annoying I also turn on the adblocker but by the other hand I curate a niche blog that is sponsored by ads so I really know how this hurts my revenue and will to continue blogging.

The 'I don't care' millennial attitude is opposite to our parents generation that advocate the opposite: their quixotesc quest to support local small businesses is a proof of that.

I am happy to hear millenials are not going the route of the Baby Boomer locusts. Gen X is the nihilist generation, the Baby Boomers took 10 - 15 years to go from Woodstock to throwing themselves off the top of buildings on Wall Street. The band Jefferson Airplane perfectly mirrors their transformation. They played at Woodstock, then became Jefferson Starship, and finally became the cockrock band Starship. For their final trick, the baby boomers invented the reverse mortgage to guarantee that they leave nothing of value behind for their children.

Note: I am only 51.76% serious. I love a good generational joke. Funny that we think we can classify an entire age group with such prejudice.