[composer]

I like this argument and would like to strengthen it in sligthly diffent dimension...

Every time I hear/read a "net offset" justification like in the greatgrandparent comment my brain only hears

  I'm gonna sell heroin/meth/crack to fund a rehab clinic; 
  AND 
  if more persons are rehabbed than addicted 
  then the whole endeavour is a good thing;
  AND 
  I am a good person; call me "one of the good ones.

The point of the analogy is to share the perspective that "net offsetting" isn't automatically a good thing. Many times the fundamental nature of the initial thing to be offset, in this case advertising, must be given primacy over anything else.

Some see the nature of advertising as neutral, some even see it as good, some see it it as evil. I see it as too impractical to wield as intended; rare-times good, some-times neutral and most-times bad.

Although we can measure air water and noise pollutions, we still have wild disagreements over how much to allow. Given that we suck at measuring the mental pollution produced by advertising-based business models, it is natural that disagreement is even greater over mental pollution.

Where is the startup that shows folks the pollution-free mental spaces that they didn't know they wanted_needed, but that they will never let-go once experienced. Sadly, most minds are limited to imagining the same sad choices jefftk listed. I for one choose to believe that people exist who see how to "fund the web" sans advertising. To them I leave this future message: "Hurry up dammit. We need you. The jefftk's of this world are making the most ungodly of big messes."