Of course not. So why would I disable my security software just because a site I visit hasn't been hacked yet? That's just basic security hygiene.
It's the same as with Troy's argument about good browser extensions. Yes they are good today but them being bought for 5 figures and the personal data harvested does not make the news and the users are clueless about it. I rather just not take the risk.
I've still got ads blocked on reddit because they're so clickbaity as of late. They look like posts from subreddits I'm subscribed to and turn out to be an ad, no thank you.
The ads are not malicious, granted, but in the case of NYT at least they're still "blinky". They get blocked at the Pi-hole now. I do subscribe, however. I'd like to turn the ads back on because I view the NYT to be a quality publication, but I'm not going to have something moving out of the corner of my eye while I try to read the paper.
I stick to a search engine rather than browsing Reddit directly. If what I'm looking for comes up in a relevant Reddit thread, huzzah.
I get the contemporary meme is "Agree with great-great-grandpas economics of 'survival of the fittest'." But I feel little obligation to pander to it everywhere it exists.
Maybe I'm an odd bird, having grown up in the remote wilderness in the 80s, no TV, growing food and hunting/fishing, and only using money for things like clothing and basic services (water/electricity/phone).
Agreed. Do you disable your pi-hole on sites like Reddit? They vet their ads so not have any of the malicious attributes that you described. All the larger newspagers like WaPo and NYT are also good about this too.
I'm all for blocking intrusive or malicious ads. But quality content depends on ad revenue. The author dedicated an entire paragraph on donating to the pi-hole project, but no mention of supporting quality content with subscriptions or unblocking acceptable ads.