There are no acceptable ads
Wait, I&#x27;m really confused. They took this quote: &quot;A big part of the web is paid by ads. Lots of websites rely on (non-invasive) ads to sustain themselves and provide content to anyone for free.&quot; and literally only addressed the &quot;non-invasive&quot; part.<p>1. Obviously other people out there don&#x27;t agree that all advertising is &quot;invasive&quot;, and their assertion otherwise is nothing but semantics.<p>2. More importantly, the core part of the statement is that &quot;A big part of the web is paid by ads.&quot; and they seem to have <i>completely</i> ignored this fundamental issue. But instead they just transition from painting advertising as some malicious evil into various ad blockers.<p>So what is the solution they are proposing? Most of the internet is paid for by ads. Are people going to switch to a paid version of Facebook? Twitter? Is everyone expected to get Youtube Red? And are we only supposed to look at the few news sources that we can justify the subscription cost for?<p>All they are advocating is to just piggy-back off of the people that are willing (or unaware of the alternatives) to deal with ads while blocking it for yourself. This is not a solution, this is just taking advantage of a technical loophole in advertising in order to make your own experience better. How exactly do they envision an Internet without advertising?