You presumably want access to the Verge's content. This is unsustainable without some revenue. You're compromising to continue to get what you want, not to make some MBA's life easier.
The reality is that the internet is not a good publication venue. There are lots of eyeballs and distribution is cheap, but getting people to pay is hard. That doesn't mean serving up advertisement is a moral response. Advertisement is met with ad-blockers and will continue to be. When that is too painful, people do skip the content.
people are free to ignore it as well.
Has his kind of blowhardy stance ever convinced anyone?
>When that is too painful, people do skip the content.
not enough that non-mainstream news sites haven't stopped serving ads. That's the point. You can only control you, not someone clicking a result off google or reddit, nor a million dollar website that has paid employees.
because of lack of regulations? or corrections to regulation. there's GDPR but of course there will be loopholes to make the browsing annoying. That's the cat and mouse of law.
Is it that you are generally opposed to critical response? And if so, do you see the irony in you critically responding to another critical response?
Note that this also goes for genuinely free content - if tons of ad-supported businesses just dominate the search results because they can afford to spend time on SEO then free alternatives (individuals sharing their passions, non-profit organizations, etc.) will be discouraged.
The reality is also that we simply have much more content than needed. Having every single of currently ad supported businesses cease to exist would not be a real problem.
Uhh, what about news organizations? That would be a problem.