[tristor]

It is not immoral to tell someone the bare facts of your offer. It is immoral to construct an advertisement, that is a carefully crafted message intended to manipulate the recipient. If your idea of an advertisement is a written text box or a person reading in a monotone voice the "speeds and feeds" and the price, then by all means, go for it. But if you think it's okay to imply without specifically saying it that your product has capabilities it does not, or to make the viewer experience emotional responses leading them to believe your product will make them feel better after you intentionally made them feel bad, then I would strongly argue that your advertisements are immoral.

[ketralnis]

Further, almost all advertisement is party A selling party C's eyeballs to party B, without involving party C at all. Some people buy Vogue magazine specifically for the ads and cool, but my start menu on my monitor attached to my computer all belong to me, not Microsoft to then auction off to somebody else. A deal that changed after I made the deal with Microsoft that didn't include that. That's clearly immoral.

[voxic11]

When did you make a deal with Microsoft not to modify your start menu and how can I get in on that?

[figassis]

So, it’s really very simple. I either want ads or I don’t want ads. Only if I want ads should there be a choice between targeted, contextual or random. There is no “I don’t want ads but I should get them anyway because reasons”. And the fact that today it’s impossible for me to opt out of ads is the problem. Talking about the feasibility of the internet is also manipulative. The argument here is and always has been about choice. Google and friends want to protect their ability to remove choice from us.

If I visit a website with ad blockers, it has the right to block me. It’s business model will depend on whether the number of people it has to block will kill it. This means it should probably find a better business model, not force itself on everyone.