But that's exactly what the ancestor comment was suggesting

>I would personally much rather allocate actual dollars instead of CryptoBuckOfTheDay backed by ads I have no desire to ever watch. Say, $20/month that gets allocated to sites I visit. The whole "reward people for watching ads" model just seems... wrong.

If you don't want to provide free content then stop publishing on the web, a free medium.

You're confusing what is technically possible with what is ethical.

Advertising isn't ethical. It is lies and manipulation.

Hey, remember OTA television? That is also a free medium. Where did this notion come from?

And you have the freedom to block/skip ads from your TV, too.

Or course you do, but you also seem to think no one should be using the web if they want to make ad revenue.

>If you don't want to provide free content then stop publishing on the web, a free medium.

How would that not also apply to television?

If you want to provide TV content, go for it. But if your content has ads, don't be surprised when people skip all the ads, because ads are offensive, and they're free to skip them. So that's an awkward business model to rely on. The consumers aren't the ones being unethical; you chose to put yourself in an aggressive and dubious position in the first place. I prefer public and collectively-funded broadcasting.

I was only commenting on the "...then don't publish on the web" bit, which you seem to be back peddling on.

Ah I see what you're getting at now. Sure, ads are unethical and they shouldn't publish them, but since they will anyway, and it would be too heavyhanded to prevent them (by making it illegal, say), we should look at ways to defend ourselves against them.

They're not paying me for the compute resources their suspicious unnecessary JavaScript payload consumes. If they were good actors respecting my property, I would respect theirs.