Y'know, that's also the case in the print edition.
The ads are in the paper and not hosted on some third party paper that's doing God knows what to my paper, and that's a big difference.
Well, I think it's a bit naive to say that a reliance on ad revenue doesn't impact the editorial line at all... but I take it you mean the print edition doesn't come with a spy camera that watches you while you read, or mix contact poison/spores in the ink, so that you get sick from reading.
There are absolutely many issues that are unique to digital advertising.
Yep, exactly. I am not opposed to advertising that is clearly marked as such and is hosted form the server that I intended to connect to as long as it's not doing anything shady with my computer.
Yes. You pay and still have to look at ads. A model used by The Economist and by the New Yorker, too. Annoying adverts that break the page turning UI and sneakily trick me into clicking on links that open browsers.
It is somewhat frustrating.
It's the same with the WSJ
That and the pricing model for multiple device types (see post above) are my biggest grievances.