[abc-xyz]

I really don't get your point.. user tracking for the purpose of serving ads (or any other purpose for that matter) and putting up paywalls (that allow certain users/bots to crawl content) is both unethical.. why does it matter which of the two is the most unethical? You can easily have ethical ads and paywalls, e.g. duckduckgo.

[jclay]

Maybe the term paywall isn’t the right one. I’m referring to the premise that you must pay the monthly fee to use the product and whether that is really any more ethical than ad supported products that are free for anyone in the world to use regardless of income.

[abc-xyz]

I think you'll have a hard time finding people who think it's unethical to require a monthly fee to use the product.

If a product can only exist by violating people's privacy (for the purpose of user tracking ads and whatnot), then perhaps said product shouldn't exist at all. That being said, I highly doubt that you can think of a product that couldn't operate with ethical ads/paid features/non-profit social service funding.

[ufo]

Ad supported products are not free, as you actually pay with your data. It is very insidious.

[gdrift]

Again: you pay not only with your data. The cost of advertising is already included in the cost of the product being advertised. You pay for it both ends.

[jclay]

Sure, but it must also be recognized that this is true only if you value your data.

In our bubbles we all certainly do. But in the context of a resident in a developing country who can’t afford to pay, the trade off of allowing access to your data rather than no access at all seems more ethical.

[noahth]

It might be enlightening for you to apply this line of reasoning to historical forms of exploitation. But no, it is not ethical to exploit someone just because they can't afford alternatives.