[Someone1234]

> No, the site owner is usually gaining money from his users (through ads, tracking, etc). This is an incredibly dishonest statement.

Which you're purposely trying to avoid by disabling JavaScript, thus mooching and demanding that they design the site around your niche desires.

NoJs users are negative revenue users. They cost the same as a revenue user but block revenue streams. Then feel like more resources should be spent on just them.

[cudgy]

Why is Javascript required to show an ad? Embed the ad in the content.

[Someone1234]

> Embed the ad in the content.

You're then asking businesses to pay to place ads that you cannot assure them were actually viewed by anyone. It can work, but companies will pay more for ads that can prove they were even rendered let alone uniquely.

Many business models don't work with reduced revenues, thus you can embed ads in content, take the lower revenue, but then need to structure your business around the lower total revenue.

Typically, when businesses have goals like these they end up instead just doing a membership model wherein it is ad-less but the users/audience is paying them directly for content production.

[yehaaa]

If the ad is an image and it’s been fetched from the server then it’s reasonable to assume it’s been viewed no?

[lazide]

Generally no, as botnets can and do trivially spoof that kind of activity to burn competitors ad budgets or generate more revenue for the ad networks or websites.