That's awfully sanctimonious. Do you cut personal checks to websites who's content you enjoy? If not, they need advertising dollars, and advertising can bring in way more money when anonymized tracking is used.
Yes, actually. If a web site has content worth consuming, and gives me the option, then I make sure they get money. I know I'm not alone - so why do so few sites make this option available? Probably because of the pervasive attitudes like yours that ads are the _only_ way to make money on the internet.
Newspapers are making money hand over fist? Funny, I thought they were being massacred and increasing CPMs on their remnant inventory is one of the few bright spots in their finances.
If you visit someone's website, they're not violating your rights by noting that you visited. You're free to not visit, in fact. Or to register yourself on a do-not-track registry, enable ad block, and visit without contributing towards their bottom line. Whatever you want.
I said "TV, Radio and Newspaper" and I also said "for decades" not just the last decade.
> ...they're not violating your rights...
I didn't say squat about "rights". I simply disagreed that tracking is "required" for web sites to make more money on advertising because that is utter hogwash. The ability to track people is a relatively new thing.