[curio_Pol_curio]

Ads on the FB & goog network (this includes phys.org btw) are NOT paper tigers, in the sense that

  they are a reliable anti-signal

(to short, not to buy, to look at rising competitors, to look into reasons why a product might be failing, to sus out the lack of foresight in their investors, to extract other high cost channels/signals that they are still using ntless

As an example of the last one, I just learnt about an ISO standard.. )

YMMV depending on how much the network knows [it doesn't know] about you ofc ;)

[PaulHoule]

Well you do know YOShInOn and I frequently find an article on phys.org that we think is interesting but will substitute a link to the paper that is referenced if it is open access. I respect their selection of topics and articles and, looking at alternatives, frequently their article on the topic is really the best. But damn their ads are awful. It's a conversation I have with them and sometimes with their advertisers ("did you know the adversarial design of that site made me click on your ad by mistake and wasted your spend?")

Maybe I should draw a firmer line for some of my values but in terms of my other values ScienceX is the best popular science publisher today by far. (compare Universe Today or Scientific American.)