It's possible for a website owner to directly publish ads, and those ads would be harder to block (but still trivial). Site owners trade screen real estate in exchange for ad revenue, just like billboards of old. This used to be the model in the early 2000s and I actually OK with it... though it probably wasn't the best model, a bit like running a diner on revenue from ads in the menu.
The problem is centralized publishers. They offer higher revenue through highly targeting ads from thousands of advertisers. It's a race to the bottom where all websites are incentivized to use publishers and consumers are forced to use ad blocking tools against the publishers (hurting content creators)... undermining the long-term sustainability of the internet as a content publishing medium.
As with many things, both consumers and producers are acting justifiably. It's the man in the middle that needs to go. He's just skimming a short-term profit and hurting both sides in the long-run.
I normally surf with uBlock Origin and most of the filters turned on (anything that's not experimental or a subset of a larger filter), and I get a shock every now and then when I use a browser without filtering and see what the internet has turned into. What the shit, that looks nothing like the Guardian that I am used to seeing. Youtube ads are a real shocker too.
About the only time I ever actually notice advertising is when some site sets up an aggressive anti-adblock or airs 2 minutes of dead air where an ad spot would have gone.
I normally surf with uBlock Origin and most of the filters turned on (anything that's not experimental or a subset of a larger filter), and I get a shock every now and then when I use a browser without filtering and see what the internet has turned into.
Indeed! I got this experience every time I used Chrome (rather than Firefox) on Android. The web has become quite horrible. I am now back on iOS and the author of uBlock has made a great blocker for Safari on iOS:
It is possible, but it requires that ads people trust publishers. Otherwise publishers will just say they served a million ad that day, and cash on it without any proof. Everyone is putting their own tracker in the ads because they can't trust other people data (unless you're Google or Facebook, or other giant)
It's possible for a website owner to directly publish ads, and those ads would be harder to block (but still trivial). Site owners trade screen real estate in exchange for ad revenue, just like billboards of old. This used to be the model in the early 2000s and I actually OK with it... though it probably wasn't the best model, a bit like running a diner on revenue from ads in the menu.
The problem is centralized publishers. They offer higher revenue through highly targeting ads from thousands of advertisers. It's a race to the bottom where all websites are incentivized to use publishers and consumers are forced to use ad blocking tools against the publishers (hurting content creators)... undermining the long-term sustainability of the internet as a content publishing medium.
As with many things, both consumers and producers are acting justifiably. It's the man in the middle that needs to go. He's just skimming a short-term profit and hurting both sides in the long-run.