[xatan_dank]

>How about when the service can not exist otherwise?

Then maybe it shouldn't exist in the first place. If your business model relies on feeding users ad technology known to be unsafe, undesirable, and disrespectful to users' freedom, it's not worth patronizing. There are plenty of web services not supported by advertisement. This is not a case where "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is acceptable. The current system of sustaining webservices is broken and outdated.

[kbenson]

> If your business model relies on feeding users ad technology known to be unsafe, undesirable, and disrespectful to users' freedom, it's not worth patronizing.

You are conflating specific negative aspects of the current advertising landscape with advertising in general.

"Advertising" covers a large spectrum of actions, from the sign above the corner store in a neighborhood saying its name to complex analysis of online behavior, personal traits and current disposition to influence your actions. There are both positive and negative aspects of online and offline advertising. Oversimplification of the description and overly broad statements based on that simplification aren't really useful to a beneficial change.

[anigbrowl]

When I see evidence of the advertising industry working hard to eliminate dark patterns and junk I'll take that argument seriously. Advertising is not a benign or neutral commercial activity, it has huge externalities which most of its proponents prefer to ignore.

[xatan_dank]

I'm not at all, because I'm not talking about advertising in general. I'm aware of what advertising is. I'm talking specifically about the same kind of advertising that the article posted is.

[kbenson]

You responded to something about advertising in general ("How about when the service can not exist otherwise?") with something about specific negative advertising practices. Regardless of what the article is about, is seems the comment you replied to was talking about advertising in general (and was itself responding to a comment referring to advertising in general).

I don't think we're going to get very far if we aren't talking about the same thing.

[peeters]

> If your business model relies on feeding users ad technology known to be unsafe, undesirable, and disrespectful to users' freedom...

You're begging the question. The point of the article is saying that advertising should be fixed. You're saying advertising shouldn't be fixed because services shouldn't be using advertising because advertising is broken.

[xatan_dank]

So how are you going to be able to determine when advertising is 'fixed'? It's already known that ad services track users and occasionally install malware on their machines. Will the ads simply become more pleasant-looking while becoming more nefarious, or will they actually be more respectful of users' freedoms? How will you know which is occurring? Also, are you seriously going to stop blocking ads periodically to see if you should keep blocking ads? I think asking or hoping the ad networks to be more polite is more than a little naive.

You put a lot of words in my mouth. I'm saying Internet advertising is broken to the point where there is no reasonable hope of fixing it. I'm saying even if advertising were "fixed", simply paying for services would be a better move. I'm not saying advertisement should not be fixed- I don't care. I'm saying all of this "fixing ads" nonsense is unreasonable and backwards thinking.