joined:May 6, 2018
Not really sure what your problem is with advertising
My reply was to the sentence "people who decline cookies and block ads should be banned from accessing the internet."
The internet, namely the WWW, which is only one part of the classic internet, was originally not meant to be a shopping mall, but a place to share information quick and for free.
Do you remember how it was in the mid and end 90s, where lots of information became accessible in this acuality, or at all? The commercial entities used Compuserve, later AOL, both pay-for services and financed their operations with revenues generated from members visiting their sites.
Then in came the commerce on the webpages. More and more, until sometimes one saw more advertises than text on a page and the content on webpages made for content (MFC) became increasingly buried by websites made for advertises (MFA).
Yes, I am fully aware that some discovered by then the economic model of small publishers who thought they can shut out the middle man by placing direct advertises, first by selling advertises on their webpages themselves and placing them themselves eg. by using permanent banners or rotation scripts. On the other side of the fence were the "old timers" who kept publishing for the good of the community for free.
However, content was being ripped and/or automatically rewritten and for those, who did that, it was profitable enough by plastering the sites with ads, to do it in a big style, and so the search engines, who exploded in their growth, picked up more and more of these sites, to a degree, where original content publishers became less and less visible.
People started to avoid the ads, websites replied with putting up more ads in a more pestering way. And people avoided them more, only to be faced with websites who forced more upon them.
Where one could read an article of interest and concentrate on the content once, now they had to deal with blinking and jumping elements, with video and audio starting without warning or mercy for the viewers.
But that was not the end of it, because now came those for whom everything was commerce, namely selling goods and services locally, and personally. Now viewers were facing a whole new "experience", which advertisers threaten even to increase. The experience being that advertisers were not satisfied that you bought one washing machine, but having the opinion that you need, for weeks to come a lot more washing machines ... and whowing that to you. Or the experience that, when you walk through a town, ads popping up like "Visit my restaurant. NOW!" rather than "sit down on the park bench next street and enjoy the view".
Yes - some people love this "experience", they love to be "taken care of", because (naturally), everyone wants only their best (their money...). They love it when they are being profiled so that "someone" knows what they are supposed to need in this minute or day.
But there are others who did not like all of this, or even most of it, and those are using ad blockers, script blockers, they disallow positioning services when they do not need it, VPN - and a thousand more tactics to evade the, in the end, it comes to it, commercialism not only of their world, but of themselves.
Yes, I know, this is written dramatized, and it is simplified, and some elements, like profiling down to existential and highly sensitive data, but the reader gets the idea nevertheless. And, let me stress, not the advertises are the problem, but their number increase, their presence everywhere and everywhen and their increase in being forced upon someone.
And now, someone comes and says "what are you doing here? It is my godgiven right to force impose my advertises on you". What effect will it have? One of two: First, a more aggressive stance and resistance towards him - or he will be left alone and people go to walled gardens, where they might find out that they can find there not a lot less of what they were looking for, but without being stringed along and, in some cases, having to sell themselves for it. :-)