[Hoasi]

> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing.

> I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way.

Never understood that concept either. It probably originated with people who were making a quick buck with ads on their sites defending their turf when the winds changed.

For a while advertising was like free money, so that's understandable.

The problem with content providers (news, quality blogs and such) is that they didn't look for a better model earlier. Therefore many were left trapped with this dreadful advertising revenue model.

[vkou]

People have looked for better business models as long as the internet was around. It always comes back to ads.

As it turns out, nobody wants to pay for micro-transactions, and organizations with more then 1 employee can't survive off Patreon.

So, you get labour of love bloggers, a handful of donation-funded individuals making youtube videos, and everyone else in an arms race to put as many frigging ads on their sites as they can.

[mirimir]

> As it turns out, nobody wants to pay for micro-transactions ...

Ad-serving systems clearly involve micro-transactions. With payments as small as $.0001 or less. There's no reason why ad-blocking intermediaries couldn't participate.

I suspect that you're referring to "micro-transactions" via PayPal or whatever, at $1 per article or more. It's not surprising that nobody wants to pay that much.

[vkou]

No, I'm referring to 'pay some intermediary $10/month, and they re-distribute it among websites you visit.'

As it turns out, most people would rather see ads... And the websites don't make enough money, unless the rates become unreasonable.