As long as it only distracts me once, I'd say it's a win.

but you got to realise the problem when monetizing off the products of other companies. when it isn't at the detriment of other companies usually everything goes well, but in this case expect to be distracted once more when this service suddenly terminates. use ublock rules, there is a better chance those will never be taken away from you.

It's the same as buying pest control: you have no guarantee that it works, but it's still highly useful in most cases.

if you don't see the ethical problem with monetizing off the demonetisation or another party, then I don't know what else to say. I agree that the method and lack of efficacy guarantee through time is very similar to buying pesticides. I guess most of us also thought that way since they appeared and see where we are.

> if you don't see the ethical problem with monetizing off the demonetisation or another party, then I don't know what else to say.

It is not generally considered unethical to set up in business, even though that will often 'demonetize' (reduce the income of) other actors in the same (or a related) line of business.

If you consider all monetization of web services to be unethical, then it is moot whether or not it demonetizes others.

As you are advocating the use of Ublock, it seems that you do not think the demonetization is ipso facto unethical.

Furthermore, the newcomer is offering an alternative form of monetization, and will presumably only succeed if that is regarded as preferable by some group of consumers.

While this seems mildly ironic, I'm not really seeing any argument, for this monetization of demonetization being unethical, that can be threaded through all these points.

It's not like advertising companies have very high ethical standards ...

In fact, does ethics even exist as a concept in business, other than when it's used to sell more products?

whataboutism is a great way to make any questioning of certain behaviors justifyable.

I agree advertising companies tend to be on the low ethical side of the spectrum, and often surf on the borderline of legal practices.

it doesn't in any way make those practice acceptable. but it doesn't grant another actor to step in and act in turn unethically.

I was thinking at first that any product that helps minimise ads and their diversion of attention is a win, but it's rather obvious that not any necessary evil is OK to exist so long as it fights another evil.

I find ublock origin doing its part without falling for the evil temptation. It's free and open source. I see little to no appeal to use a paid for ad blocker made by a developer with questionable ethics. even if that product happens to be superior. let's just make ublock better. and let's donate if we get value from it.

Still, I have no problem with the demonetization of things that annoy me AND allow me to pay only in one way: with my personal data. If your service is opt-out rather than opt-in, I have no ethical problem that your service is demonetized in one way or another. If the opt-out costs me money and effort, that reduces my sympathy even more.