Another is switching to a smaller search engine that isn’t yet targeted by the same schemes yet.
When I browse sites that are deeply infected by Google ads, every single ad seems scammy. The internet is a hostile place. I think it was like this since the early 2000s.
I'm sorry to websites but from my perspective ads are a failed monetization approach. Go back to the drawing board and come up with something new. Charge me $0.001 for each page view but don't fucking show me ads.
I'd like to find a way to crowd source an unauthorized CDN for just the good parts. Maybe the ads need to be rendered once by a server somewhere so we can extract the content from the page, but after that we ought to be able to gossip content that's been pre-stripped of ads.
The web of trust that would be needed to make the gossiping safe can also help us figure out who to pay.
This is data specifically crafted to get your computer to do something in addition to what you asked it to do, without your consent, and not in a way that benefits you
The word for data like that is "malware".
If it's worth paying for a giant un-targeted poster next to a highway, it's worth paying for embedded (i.e. unblockable, equivalent to other site content) ads based solely on website content, not viewer tracking.
It's just that most sites/ad vendors don't want to, and are trying to gaslight us into thinking surveillance advertising is the only option.
I'm happy to pay for content that I know is high quality. But I'm not signing up for hit-or-miss content through a brittle subscribe-and-then-cancel-later-if-you-dont-like-it model when there's no real reason why pay-as-you-go doesn't exist
$0.001 is a placeholder for each page view. If you want to argue that's too cheap, that's a separate discussion, but saying I only want shit for free is inaccurate
What I want to see is a lot more high quality content behind subscriptions so that you know you'll likely find what you're looking for there.
I'm in marketing and in my experience online ads pay a misery to website creators, maybe except casinos and other unethical ads. If you produce online content you are much better off also selling whatever you produce, combining information with marketing. This suits well for many subjects, but not for all. Journalism cannot be combined with this for one.
That's why I'd like to see somebody making huge subscription bundles, where you'd get access to let's say hundreds or thousands of high quality websites within a specific or broad interest for a fair monthly fee. This money could then be distributed to content creators according to popularity of their content.
If creators started thinking rationally and put their own economic sustainability before their quest for fame, they would flock to these kind of subscription platforms. I honestly think it's the future of the internet. But people are stuck in the mindset of comparing prices of completely unrelated things, just because they access them with a computer. They think it's outrageous to pay $10 a month for access to a website when their internet subscription is $15 and Netflix is $15. But those are completely different things. It's like if I take the bus to town and go to the movies and then go to a store to buy something that costs $100. Would I be sensible to demand a smaller price because the bus was just $5 and the movie ticket was just $10?