> They're creating immense value, of which, they are taking a small commission. If they were not creating immense value, the advertisers would have no need to use them.
You fail to prove why my logic is wrong and answer your own questions instead, then on top of that make sure to sprinkle vague insults at me! I won't bother providing rebuttals to the rest of your arguments. You make sure you have a good day, moron!
> Why would they let you disable ads on their ad-supported platform?
Because they stand to gain (immensely) from building my trust about their model of advertising if I choose to participate in it. Or maybe am being too optimistic and everyone would disable ads 100% of the time given such an option? Would be an awesome experiment for Google :)
The problem with these platforms you call ad-supported, is even when you pay a subscription for premium the content creators are allowed to slot in sponsored segments which isn't exactly my definition of an ad-free experience.
> By using ad blockers, you are merely taking away from everyone else using the platform. I wish these companies did more to stop ad blockers.
Taking away what exactly? If you could be a bit more specific. Also, you are free to dream in your utopia where ad blockers don't serve a need, just don't expect everyone to follow you there.
> That's because from what you wrote, you don't seem to understand how these ad platforms work
Would be happy if you could explain where I got it wrong.
If ad brokers (the Googles of this digital world) ever wanted me to pay attention to them (and their ads), they would give me a toggle to switch ads on and off as I please. As long as a simple choice like this isn't made available to me, then it's uBlock all the way. Or zero interaction from my end with the ad broker's platforms.
I recon from an individual perspective, ads are not a game changer to consumer behavior. They only burden the individual with more decisions to make when choosing a product to buy. Infact, in today's standards they only serve as a way to guess-timate person X bought toothpaste B because of ad campaign Z. Therefore, give us (ad broker Y) some of that kickback. When I still would have bought the toothpaste anyway.
Blaming ads for people's choices isn't fair nor is it any accurate due to how simplistic this attribution is. Remove the ads of out the equation and people will still go for that Pepsi. That's what they want.
I will just leave this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25623858
You fail to prove why my logic is wrong and answer your own questions instead, then on top of that make sure to sprinkle vague insults at me! I won't bother providing rebuttals to the rest of your arguments. You make sure you have a good day, moron!