Online ads are a very invasive business model that only penalizes the end-user, and rarely benefits them.
Especially when ads are often nasty vectors for malware.
Especially when ads are often nasty vectors for malware.
Malware isn't advertising and security is an issue in any industry and sector.
Most stuff on the commercial Internet exists just for entertainment. If people can't get X-entertainment for some reason, it's likely that most of them won't care at all and turn to Y-entertainment instead. For example, if Youtube closed tomorrow, there would be an outcry about the lost pirated music and a few silly popular Youtubers, but after a month the site would already have been forgotten.
Assuming of course that person A is fully aware of what they are giving said ad company, which currently is often not the case.
Clever youtube though, let you become a paying customer and bypass the ads. It really is a very compelling resource once the millstone of advertising is removed.
I think GDPR provides this no? Leaving the privacy aside for a second though, there's other ways in which pervasive advertising is destructive. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to side-step even if I am still dealing with evil-global-mega-corp (but then again, what large company isn't?).
EDIT - this thought actually occurs to me, that your data is probably safer with evil-global-mega-corp than with smaller businesses even state institutions because at least evil-global-mega-corp knows better, and has a larger attack surface for scrutiny.
People can live without a lot of things, but that's not what this is about. We're in a modern society where people can fill their wants and desires, and they're perfectly able and willing to make their own choices about the content they consume and how they pay for it.
Youtube is just distribution. The content, the demand for it, and the creators who produce will still exist and still continue to be paid primarily by advertising.
This is such a pedestrian argument, as if advertising pays for the content to be made and then hosted - when the truth of the matter is that someone else pays for the content to be created (and hosted) and that cost is recouped (with additional profit added on top), after the fact by advertising.
For example, advertising companies are not paying for YouTube content creators to create their content and then for it to be hosted on YouTube. Advertising companies seek those with the largest audience (typically, that requires having made content a priori, yeah?) and then make partnerships with those people and, then, those people may make videos pushing those products.
WSJ, since this is predominantly an American board, doesn't have advertisers paying their reporters', photographers', editors', etc. salaries. Advertisers are not paying for the content to be created or to be hosted. All of that is done by WSJ, who then recoups the costs via advertising, yeah?
So, the only point at which "95% of the content on the internet that ads pay for" is true, is (predominantly) after the content has been made and hosted and is only true over time (e.g.: not with immediate effect).
>Malware isn't advertising
You have that backwards from the OC's comment: Advertising networks have been used to push malware.
>...and security is an issue in any industry and sector.
This comes across as a whataboutism, "So? Other industries have security problems, too!" and, whilst true, largely ignores the fact that those other industries (mostly at large) weren't leveraged as attack vectors to spread malware. (I'm assuming your meaning of "industry" infers the meaning of "commercial industry", that generates revenue in exchange for a product or service, which would ignore the obvious things like P2P and the like.)
Security is an eternal problem and a completely separate topic from advertising as a business model. Do you suggest we stop using email because some people got scams and viruses? Or can we talk about communications while acknowledging that it's separate from implementation and UX issues?