[SapphireSun]

I see this decision as good in the sense that it allows the people hosting comments sections to pay Disqus directly, allowing it to be somewhat more independent.

The more I learn about advertising, the more I find arguments against it compelling. Disqus is a comment system that facilitates the free exchange of ideas. If it relies significantly on ads, then advertisers can begin to police it by threatening to pull sponsorship. This eliminates productive discussion that threatens the interests of advertisers. For instance, advertisers don't like placing ads alongside people that care too much about things, they prefer people to be lightly entertained and in a buying mood. They also don't like placing their ads alongside controversy, as it can negatively impact their brand.

Thus reliance on advertising introduces an interdependency on a relatively small set of giant corporations' goodwill, even for niche activities and will, which when push comes to shove, substitute their positions for the managers' of Disqus. Allowing advertisements to be turned off actually immunized Disqus somewhat from this problem, but having advertisements on everywhere enables it. Allowing users to pay to turn them off probably more than offsets this, though it does impact exceptionally poor users (who, for some reason, are probably more likely to dissent controversially). That could be ameliorated by case-by-case ad waivers if the issue comes up, though it does come close to Disqus endorsing a controversial issue.

Maybe this seems like a minor issue, but Disqus provides a platform for debate, and advertising can act to bound the limits of debate for better or worse. I would prefer if the Disqus managers could act according to their own moral compass when under pressure.