[retsibsi]

I wonder if adblockers have contributed to this. In theory we users can reward non-horrible advertisers by whitelisting their ads, but in practice we tend to block as much as possible. The remaining ad-viewing audience will be partly composed of people who are ethically opposed to adblocking or are held back by a lack of tech knowledge, but it will also be relatively insensitive to ads (both in the sense of being able to put up with a lot, and in the sense of requiring a lot to attract their attention).

[allarm]

> ethically opposed to adblocking

How can you be ethically opposed to something that ruins your experience? It’s obviously their choice, I just can’t imaging browsing without adblock, I’m ethically opposed to the pages filled with crap I guess.

[bluGill]

Those who go through the effort to make good web content, and who pay the costs for a web server deserve to be paid. So ethically I should not block ads.

I block them anyway because ads also have an ethical contract with me that they have broken. They need to not take up too many resources on my computer, not make noise when the website otherwise has no noise content, not install malware, and be for legitimate products not scams. Probably more as well, but the above are things I regularly caught ads doing before I got an ad blocker.

[pbhjpbhj]

If Chrome, Edge, Safari all came with uBlock by default, what percentage do you think would be "ethically opposed" enough to disable the extension? How many would turn it right back on?