I would guess that at least 20 points of that 41 percent is due to Youtube. Which is ironic, given that it probably hurts Google the most. For a long time I held out but after learning about ad-malware and being bothered by Youtube's 15th ad when I just wanted to listen to music, I just said screw it.

Didn't know these blockers could handle youtube video ads.

And if you really want to listen to music undisturbed, why not get a Spotify subscription?

Spotify doesn't (or at least didn't when I tried it) work that well in Canada. I had a paid Rdio subscription, but the service kept getting worse. The only thing that let me play what I wanted to play was Youtube.

I think the sites brought it upon themselves by accepting ads that move and sometimes even play sounds. This distract from the content people want to read etc in ways that static images can't (tho there are some ads, for various movies etc, that can be "distracting" no matter what).

I have a report from Q3 of last year that breaks down adblocker usage by age range:

  16-24: 34% 
  25-34: 32% 
  35-44: 26% 
  45-64: 22% 
  55-64: 18%

I found those numbers pretty surprising since installing a browser extension isn't a typical user behavior.

I found the comment about incognito mode interesting. I've been been using my browser like that for almost a year now, but I thought I was the only one. I never thought anyone outside tech would do it either.

I wonder how effective ads are getting on the web anyway. I'm techy, and I filter them mentally. My wife is consumer literate technical and filters them mentally too. And I have Ad Block.

I seem to recall a recent article claiming that companies has started to ask themselves the same thing.

There's always been something cargo culty about online advertising.

If that market implodes, it's going to be... interesting.

I thought that a while ago. It hasn't happened yet but that doesn't mean it won't. And even if it doesn't implode, it could certainly decline significantly.

A HUGE amount of the "free" services and content that pretty much all of us take so much for granted around the web are directly or indirectly supported by online advertising. Take that away and, as you say, it will be interesting.

Gmail? I'd pay for. Netflix? I already pay for. Online content? Sure, I'll pay a few bucks a month for the Economist or the NY Times. I already pay for Evernote, Flickr, etc.

What free services am I going to miss?

Search? Pretty much all content provided beyond the individual level (and even some of that)?

But those millenials also overwhelmingly use mobile, so I'm not sure what the overall effect is there.

You can install adblock and uBlock on mobile (and it's probably even more valuable, since you have less data to spare)

I have yet to meet someone who's aware of AdBlock's existence and doesn't use it...

Me. I don't use it, never have.

Are ads annoying - sure. But so are paywalls, so are websites that are entirely VC funded and desperately growth hacking until they can sell out to a bigger company.

The web is an expensive thing, very expensive. By not blocking ads I'm doing my bit to help fund it. I see ad blocking as a lot like piracy: understandable in some cases, but still basically freeloading on those of us who support the creation of the content.

My semi-serious opinion is that by using Adblock, you are helping fund the web in the long run by collapsing bad ad-driven behavior and making more pastoral models compare favorably.

>infecting

I would use a different word here, but I love her spirit!