[gruez]

>Correct. Your comment is qualitative handwaving, an armchair speculation that sounds plausible.

As the saying goes, what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. You rag on people for doing "qualitative handwaving" and "armchair speculation", yet you make the claim of "There is no way an adblocker accurately identifies price sensitivity" with nothing but "qualitative handwaving" and "armchair speculation".

>Is that enough justification to pend off eventual discrimination lawsuits? I personally doubt it.

Obviously nothing can fend off "eventual discrimination lawsuits", because anyone can sue for any reason. That said, I find it really a reach to say that discriminating based on ad-blocker status would be construed as discrimination against a protected class in a court of law.

> Very few companies have the analytics maturity to use A/B testing in production to prove your hand-waving assertion without the effect failing sensitivity checks.

Right, that's why I said it was plausible, not that it was a rigorously proven theory.