[SquishyPanda23]

The websites aren't free, you pay by letting others track you.

This seems like it's a silly nitpicking point, but in this context that's the whole point of the discussion: whether your users understand and consent to paying that cost.

[nofunsir]

The onus is on the "website" to find an ethical business model, not the people who have been (rightly) trained that the web is free.

[moron4hire]

People say this (ads keep the Web free) but it's not true. What keeps the Web free is the altruism of the vast majority of people who pay for their server costs out of pocket. The long tail of sites won't reach the threshold necessary to receive a payout from their ad provider. So tracking makes Google money at the expense of users and most websites.

Example: my personal website costs me about $35/mo to run. If I put ads on it, Google would tell me I made about $5/mo, and then take that $5 for themselves because they have decided they don't need to pay out small amounts. So I basically get to pay to host ads for Google.

[somebodythere]

The vast majority of web usage these days happens on YouTube, Instagram, etc. Ads certainly keep those parts of the web free.

[hk__2]

> The vast majority of web usage these days happens on YouTube, Instagram, etc. Ads certainly keep those parts of the web free.

Counterpoint: Wikipedia.

[stared]

...or grab it for free (which you are obliged to provide) while you cover the cost. It doesn't sound like a fair deal to me.

If you were able to say "tracking or subscribe" it would made much more sense.