The user owns their computer. You own yours or at least the party you have entrusted your content does.

If people don't want to look at your ads they wont. Don't like it charge money.

When file sharing first came along it was pretty clear that the status quo of dropping $20 on a CD for some music was not going to last. Regardless the music industry refused to accept this and fought tooth and nail to try to keep CDs as the norm instead of adopting to changing times. Unsurprisingly that's a battle they eventually lost.

A decade or so ago ad-blocking was extremely esoteric. Today it's reaching a majority on all devices excluding mobile. Though mobile will also likely follow a similar esoteric->majority trajectory. In any case it should be clear that the status quo of advertisements isn't going to last. Google trying to break ad-blocking in Chrome feels very much analogous to the old dinosaurs in the music industry trying to cling onto CDs. Users hate unsolicited ads and, in the end, it's a losing battle to try to force everybody to keep watching them.

The point of this is that that money you're being offered is money that would not exist otherwise. These people are not going to watch your ads, period. You're free to take it, and you're free to not take it - it'll eventually be returned to the people that wanted to give it to you. But complaining about it's very existence is peculiar. It's like if you only accept PayPal and I said I don't use PayPal but I'd be happy to send you money through e.g. Stripe. If you don't want to setup a Stripe account to accept my money then that's completely your choice, but to complain about it just seems petulant.

Is uBlock terrible?

Are you a content creator, with your income stream at least partly gained through advertisements?

Yes? Generating and serving content isn't free. If you don't want the ads, don't visit the page or pay for an ad-free version.

This ignores the actual issue with ads, which is tracking. Advertising has this huge system around it where your information is the commodity.

This means that advertising inherently is not something you "opt into" when you visit a page. You are being tracked everywhere you go.

That's the problem brave solves, but it accepts that removing ads without another system to reward content creators is important - hence BAT.

Agreed - the only reason ad-blocking is even a thing is because:

- Overuse of tracking, including nefarious attempts to de-anonymise users through excessive fingerprinting

- Crappy, distracting, in-your-face ads

- Ad networks serving malware (rare, obv)

If ad networks focussed on ridding the world of these issues, more people would be happy to let the ads through and help support content creators through ads.

I partially disagree.

All adds are subconscious manipulation.

I hate them, no matter if they track me or are in-your-face. I will always use an ad-blocker, but allow ads if a site asks me to do so, and I enjoy the content.

But I realize I'm probably in a minority here. Most users would not bother with adblockers if ads would not degrade the web experience so much.

Then block tracking, but don't remove the advertising content. Or propose a solution that doesn't involve paying them with a worthless cryptocurrency, unless you'd like your salary to be paid in BAT.

Advertising is literally an attempt to manipulate people in a way that subverts their interests. It's like you are making money by giving a "free" concert wherein you are paid to kick the audience in the nuts and now you are shocked that people are starting to wear a cup.

Then if you object to advertising, don't view content backed by advertising.

However much you might wish it to be so clicking a link doesn't create an enforceable contract between me and you.

So why when my maximum benefit is blocking ads AND viewing content should I change my behavior.

Blocking ads has been a thing for 17 years and will probably be a thing for the next 17.

If you could force me to watch your ads you wouldn't have to ask

It's not just that I choose option C to continue watching and not pay. I in fact opt out of the entire decision making process. I'm not going to figure out what sort of ads you have or whether I should or shouldn't block them because life is short and I have other better things to do. I'm just going to turn on ublock and just keep swimming.

If you don't put out videos tomorrow because of this I will watch someone else's content. If you produce something truly unique put it out there for money and I will make an informed choice on whether I want to pay for it.

It's really weird to see ad-tech defenders on Hacker News in 2019. Create a Patreon. Take the few minutes to create a Brave Creator account. Use a non-invasive ad network on AdBlock's "Acceptable Ads" list. Read an Orwellian novel.

Not that weird, since there are many here who work for ad-tech companies and are actively building these systems.

The presented solutions are honestly quite silly.

Anything available on the web, an open platform, is free to view by design. To make it not free, you as a publisher are required to take extra steps which do not presume control over the client computer. If you don't like this, perhaps the web platform is not the one you intended to use.

You want to earn money with your content?

Charge for it instead of uploading it to a platform that shows ads, OR upload it to a platform that can't be used with adblockers!

Is it unethical to avoid looking at billboards?

If not, what if I had a special pair of glasses that obscured such billboards or other physical advertising? It's not possible today, but not that hard to imagine in the near future.

How are these situations different from blocking ads on the web?

To my knowledge, billboards don't fund roads. Unless they are the exclusive source of revenue for roads, the situations aren't really comparable.

Ads don't fund the communication networks as far as I am aware. Last time I checked, my internet bill wasn't paid by me looking at ads.

Ah, that is a good point. They aren't comparable on that aspect.

I would argue they are still comparable in terms of "autonomy of attention".

You can turn that around, if you don't want me skipping the ads don't serve me content through a medium that allows me to do so.

Was it immoral to tape a show and fast forward through the ads?