[aw3c2]

If the ads are presented in a nice way (no animated flash popups with sound (or any subset)), are for something good and not delivered through a data-mining ad network, I don't mind. Those will often get through my ad blocking filters all by themselves.

[Semiapies]

Ads keep the sites I'm looking at funded and available. However, obnoxious ads (flashing, disgusting, NSFW, etc.) are rude, and I will filter them.

[TallGuyShort]

But the ads only pay if people click on them. I don't click on ads, EVER. I never have, and have never even been close to. Some people do click them, obviously. Since I'm not clicking them, anyway - me using an ad blocker only saves the advertiser bandwidth money.

[eli]

Lots of ads are per-impression not per-click. Really that's the only sensible way to do a brand-building campaign.

Anyway, I have no problem clicking ads if they're relevant and for something I really want to learn more about. It's just that they rarely are.

[zargon]

I have only clicked an ad once in my life. I was searching Amazon but couldn't find anything suitable. Then I noticed they were showing me an ad from a 3rd-party site for exactly what I was looking for. I clicked it, and bought the product. So at this rate, ads help me out about once every 15 years.

[Semiapies]

You're not the internet. If nobody clicked on those ads, they certainly wouldn't exist.

[TallGuyShort]

I explicitly said "there are people that click on those ads". Those people don't have Ad Blockers. I don't click on those ads, so I have an Ad Blocker. All I was saying was that it doesn't present an ethical problem.

[lucumo]

> I don't click on those ads, so I have an Ad Blocker.

It's probably the other way around: You have an Ad Blocker, so you don't click on ads.

[antipaganda]

No,seriously; there are a TON of people online who hate ads and NEVER click on them. Ever. So we use AdBlock.