Hacker News Reader

From the consumer point of view, the business model does not even enter the equation. What matters is media pollution: my display, my computing, my rules ! To hell with the publisher's expectations of a social contract binding viewership with acceptance of advertisement. That is of course incoherent with the taste for free resources, but that is not enough cognitive dissonance to stop anyone from setting up ad blockers.

View on HN

From my vantage point, that's perfectly fine. Block ads, change the fonts, color the site orange if you want. As you say, your display, your rules. I communicate to my users that I myself use an ad blocker on my own property. There's no dissonance there.

My mom asked me to disable ad blocking I've set up on her devices, as she finds them useful.

> That is of course incoherent with the taste for free resources

Except it's not. Most content that I consume - like your comment here - is created by individuals that do not get paid no matter how the platform that the content is shared on is monetized. It's absurd to say that there would be no content without monetization and when people have content to shere there will be ways to share that content even when ads illegal or blocked by everyone. However as long as ads are accepted by the public at large, ad-laden sites will be more profitable and thus also have more resources to crush any alternatives that provide an ad-free user experience. I'm quite fine with anything that needs ads to survive to disappear as a result of ad-blocking - there will always be something else to fill my time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com