You might take a moment to consider that some of us who block ads are more concerned about the morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than we are the revenue some arbitrary site may or may not lose from missing our impressions before you start casting stones wildly about like that.
I'd probably be very willing to consider whitelisting sites who worked with advertisers that didn't run tracking programs most of the Three Letter Agencies in the West would kill to access — if they didn't already have behind-the-scenes arrangements with them. But that question is probably pretty moot at this point, isn't it?
When they give me a way to, yes, I actually do. I pay for recurrent subscriptions, plural, to sites that offer and warrant it. At least one of them has been running for a decade or more.
Regardless, calling it a "crusade" is the same kind of argument-poisoning that the GP uses with his "people with morals" quip. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point.
"crusade: lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue."
Apparently using correct words is now argument poisoning charged rhetoric.
Okay.
Sorry if you don't like when the definitions of words match what you are doing.
"If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point."
Let's look at who is using rhetoric here:
"morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than "
"Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription.
"
So if it's not, you just view it anyway?
"Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade.
"
It's pretty rich to make a moral argument the way the parent did and have a problem with a term like crusade, which is a precise and correct term to describe this.
> > "Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription. "
> So if it's not, you just view it anyway?
Yes, because I decide what authors and publications I choose to support based on what they publish. You might think I'm "taking free samples too far", but you can always flick through a magazine before buying it in a store -- what is the difference here? Paying for a publication when you have no idea what they produce is just being a bad consumer.
> > "Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade. "
> It's pretty rich to make a moral argument the way the parent did and have a problem with a term like crusade, which is a precise and correct term to describe this.
Well, to be fair GP made a similar moral argument, so I guess they also have a crusade?
Nice.
You might take a moment to consider that some of us who block ads are more concerned about the morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than we are the revenue some arbitrary site may or may not lose from missing our impressions before you start casting stones wildly about like that.
I'd probably be very willing to consider whitelisting sites who worked with advertisers that didn't run tracking programs most of the Three Letter Agencies in the West would kill to access — if they didn't already have behind-the-scenes arrangements with them. But that question is probably pretty moot at this point, isn't it?