<i>The way you propose, by vetting ads, has been used successfully</i><p>For businesses running large enough sites to operate their own scheme, sure. Facebook ads are pretty safe, for example. Unfortunately, this isn&#x27;t a realistic option for smaller sites, and neither are any of the other things you mentioned in most cases. Alternatives like donations or PWYW have been tried and they almost always fail. That&#x27;s why ad-funded web sites are still so common!<p>I don&#x27;t think this discussion is going to go anywhere useful. You&#x27;re objecting to a behaviour that is widely useful -- incorporating content served by third parties as part of a site -- on the basis that site operators with little if any revenue aren&#x27;t operating to an impossibly high standard of safety checking at their own expense to prevent a small risk of third party malware being served by their site without their knowledge or consent. Furthermore, you have offered no plausible better alternatives for most of those site operators. In a world complying with your rules, most of the modern web doesn&#x27;t exist, because no-one would &quot;ethically&quot; be allowed to contribute to it without falling short of your standards.