If I was taking this personally, this reply would simply be a flame (or I wouldn&#x27;t have bothered). I am writing this reply for the same reason I write most of my posts here on HN: education, and the hope that the tech industry can be redirected away from the problems the industry has cultivated in the last decade(s).<p>&gt; This is not a secret conspiracy.<p>I never said anything close to that, and I&#x27;m not sure whee you got that idea from.<p>&gt; Not everything can or should be a small little site.<p>Obviously. Many things <i>can</i> be done small scale, and some people even prefer that for a varietyh of reasons. Patronage <i>is</i> an alternative funding model. It should go without saying that there isn&#x27;t a 1-to-1 mapping between possible funding models and the projects that want funding. Clearly patronage will only work for <i>some</i> situations.<p>&gt; they have every right to include advertising to offset the cost of creating and distributing that content to you which you requested<p>Yes, they do.<p>Just like the end-user to which they gave a copy of their content has every right to view that advertising, or cut it out, or pay someone to cut it out, or simply decide they want to go somewhere else. Creative works have a <i>copy</i>right, which does not extend to <i>use</i>.<p>Advertising has always involved risk.<p>&gt; security<p>If you want to actually learn the problems of the <i>digital exhaust</i> (or data trail) we leave behind, I suggest listening to some of Dan Geer&#x27;s talks in the last 1-2 years. The only reason this isn&#x27;t a problem right now is that the tech is still new. However, the last year of leaks and compromised databases has shown that the peace will not last.<p>&gt; criminals will be criminals<p>Yes. <i>Exactly</i>. Which is why it is important to not let power concentrate, and the databases that advertisers are building (with Google and Facebook at the top) are a power that is new to the human experience. The solution is to limit how much damage an be done by limiting how much data can be aggregated.<p>You might characterize my goals here as a type of <i>self regulation</i>, as I fear the blowback as people finally figure out what technology has been doing. The alternative to self regulation is some type of Butlerian Jihad (probably misguided and poorly targeted). This isn&#x27;t really hyperbole as these are two extremes and reality is usually somewhere in the middle. That said, when I talk to non-technical people about how modern tech works (adsense, other tracking by ad networks&#x2F;etc, &quot;smart&quot; TVs, and other supposedly-&quot;free&quot; services), there is a common first reaction: &quot;Why aren&#x27;t they in jail?&quot;<p>&gt; guns<p>Are a bad comparison in many ways. The risk from a criminal with a gun <i>stops</i> after they are caught. The entire problem with data is that it is a <i>permanent</i> risk.<p>&gt; (and I&#x27;m doing my best to make that happen)<p>For that, my applause and thanks!<p>&gt; arguing that we should get rid of the advertising model<p><i>That is not my goal!</i> Your replies are often arguing with straw men.<p>I believed advertising is on shaky ground now that General Purpose Computer has given powerful tools let people view data as they desire. Adblocking is only the beginning. This is a pragmatic statement, because I&#x27;ve been watching a backlash against advertising happen for several years now. However, advertising will never go away entirely, as it is <i>one of the useful funding models</i>.<p>My point in arguing is a refutation of the well-known fallacies and talking points in your initial post. You have argued against some (that advertising is in any way <i>passive</i> - as you say, it is &quot;meant to gain your attention&quot;). You have also made some <i>patently false</i> claims about power and anonymity (HTTP requests are generally not anonymous, even without the crazy tracking that the ad networks do). You also have made numerous claims that elevate advertising as the only or majority option for funding something on the network. I&#x27;ve already mentioned security above.<p>These specific claims are what I have a serious problem with. Quite a few funding models exist, and many variations are being explored. This is one of the huge benefits of modern technology: it made available so many more options in every area, including business models. The human experience with internetworking is still in its infancy, and I suspect we haven&#x27;t even discovered the <i>best</i> ways of utilizing the network for business purposes.