[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.