&gt; Power efficiency of ads is really not that big of a deal.<p>Saying that doesn&#x27;t make it true. The article says otherwise, and I believe it. I really don&#x27;&#x27;t understand how you think this could be true.<p>Also &quot;not that big of a deal&quot;? So you think it&#x27;s fine if I quietly tap into your power lines and steal some of your electricity, as long as it&#x27;s only a small amount that &quot;isn&#x27;t that big of a deal&quot;?<p>&gt; Do you get upset that articles have images in them?<p>Do you have a hard time understanding the differenced between the content I requested, and crap added in that has <i>nothing</i> to do with the content I requested, which is specifically designed to distract me <i>from</i> that content?<p>If you truly cannot see the difference here, I don&#x27;t know how to help you.<p>&gt; I believe you&#x27;re conflating the what I mentioned about the effort involved in choosing to pay vs types of annoying ad formats.<p>NO, I am NOT.<p>The type of ad format isn&#x27;t particularly relevant. Advertising - any type - is <i>by definition</i> designed to distract people that see them, and it takes a significant mental effort to work around these distractions.<p>Be aware that if you want to argue against this point, you&#x27;re challenging one of the basic laws of marketing as it has been practiced for many decades.<p>&gt; Actually the idea is to gain your attention.<p>Thank you for admitting advertising is trying to be distracting. That is, the opposite of &quot;passive&quot;. You seem to be arguing against your previous claims.<p>&gt; having to decide to pay every time you load a new page.<p>This is a complete straw-man argument. You&#x27;re suggesting that &quot;paying every time&quot; is the only alternative to advertising, which is patent nonsense. Even in the case of a paywall model, nobody would &quot;pay every time&quot;; subscription models have always existed.<p>Are you going to pretend that Patreon doesn&#x27;t exist? Many models of funding exist and are being used successfully.<p>&gt; Everything is a vector.<p>If you don&#x27;t understand the concept of minimizing the attack surface, you really should refrain from making security claims. Advertising is adding <i>additional</i> attack vectors.<p>Besides, it is incredibly dishonest to try to say advertising is on equal footing here. Ad networks have been the <i>vector of choice</i> for a long time. Some of that is because of their <i>utter disregard</i> for security. They are also chosen as a vector because ad networks <i>by definition</i> reach a wide audience.<p>&gt; What tracking information and what is harming you?<p>I&#x27;m not sure how to respond to this. Are you seriously ignorant of the tracking done by ad networks? Or did you miss the last few years of data breeches that expose information and the powerful new machine learning tools we have to analyze large databases?<p>If you are gathering information - ANY information - about what people do on the internet, you are creating a target. If you are aggregating that information - again, ANY information - across sites, even if you supposedly anonymize[1] it, you are creating datasets that are the most tempting target imaginable for insurance companies, extortionists, stalkers, and governments with national security letters.<p>In a sane world, you would be <i>liable</i> for any damage caused by that database you created.<p>[1] As DJB says[2], &quot;Hashing is Magic Crypto Pixie Dust, which takes personally identifiable information, and makes it incomprehensible to the marketing department.&quot;<p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;projectbullrun.org&#x2F;surveillance&#x2F;2015&#x2F;video-2015.html#bernstein" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;projectbullrun.org&#x2F;surveillance&#x2F;2015&#x2F;video-2015.html...</a>