The question that I always wonder is, is it really that devastating if people who don't want ads and wouldn't click on them hide them? I can't help but think that the kind of person that uses adblock-like software is also not likely to be the target group for most ads. It's only a tiny minority those who do click on ads after all.
Is your rejection of the argument based on the value of data generated by the tracking cookies? Is there some other reason behind your response? Just interested.
My rejection of the argument is based on the entitlement of people who make it. "I never would have paid for something, therefore I deserve it for free!"
I was hoping that you had some insight into the relative revenue generated by tracking and by clicks on the advert.
The tracking I find onerous because of privacy and bandwidth concerns and I imagine will be regulated soon.
The click-able adverts I have less objection to as I do not in fact click on adverts on Web pages - mainly because the products advertised are usually laughably irrelevant to my concerns and the subject of the article I am attempting to read (a point made by OP).
