[staunch]

Hey look at that, you're trying to be technically correct instead of actually correct. Obviously you haven't proven any historical precedent for anything like the tracking and exploitation of millions of people's private data.

[NullCharacter]

Do you know what "moving the goalposts" is?

I assume you do seeing how you like to casually quote Shakespeare in your HN comments.

You said (quite cynically):

> The only purpose of ads is to forcefully track, distract, and exploit people's privacy for financial gain.

Then when someone pointed out that in general that's not the point of ads, but rather to support businesses that wish to keep their fees nominal or nonexistent, as has been done for a very long time, you said:

> What businesses were ad supported centries ago?

To which I replied with proof from a newspaper some 300 years ago.

And then you, as a last-ditch effort (I like this one the best):

> you're trying to be technically correct instead of actually correct.

Hilarious!

[staunch]

1. My statement on the ethics of ads was very clearly made in the context of modern advertising, which is the topic of this HN thread. Context matters.

2. My assertion that advertising was historically a minuscule part of civilization and played little to no role in most people's lives is entirely correct.

3. It was misleading to suggest that you were even technically correct. I never claimed advertising didn't exist, nor would I ever. I could point to ancient sources of advertising much older than your newspaper clipping.

4. I already replied to you, clarifying that I believe "In some cases advertising may have been a net positive but I think the future can do entirely without."