No, just ... no

This is about those incessant requests to turn off ad-blockers on browsers that we run into when we wish to not be served adverts which may contain malware, spyware, trackers, etc.

I know adverts are the monetization model of the internet/interwebs. The more ads one can serve per unit time results in more revenue for the server of the ads. The server of the ads isn't responsible for the advert contents. That comes from what resembles a market exchange, which attempts to match the value of the advert, with the bids to serve it. Adverts which get clicks have higher value, so there is an aspect of optimization which tries to anticipate the viewers interests.

This anticipation is often based upon a model of a particular consumer (or target, victim, use whatever word you wish), an inference based upon past historical browsing (hence the tracker bits) and action. Websites (news, blogs, et al.) use this as a revenue stream, and play to their target demographics. They release content that they can measure increased engagement with, which drives this cycle.

For this model to work, the value of the content for the consumer of the content must be larger than the cost, or risks, to view it.

Sort of like that. Every time they say it (or send it) they get paid. If you block the adverts, you are taking money from them. So they check to see if you are blocking adverts with some javascript. Or they use more sophisticated platforms.

So are we to let unvetted advertisements stream to our machines/devices just to help out visited websites?

Well ... no. Adverts have been, and continue to be vectors for malware distribution. Otherwise legitimate ad networks have been penetrated by nefarious actors to disperse their kit. Often well ahead of the time they enable their attack.

Even more troubling is the use of the malvertising vector to spread zero day exploits. Some devices/systems have reasonable security models that disable many/most of these exploits, some are large flashing targets that are just waiting for exploits to hit. If you are not sure which is which, ask yourself, does your IT department send you phishing attempts on your communication devices/applications that another platform, or communication application would enable you to far more easily detect as being potentially malware? If so, then you know the targeted applications and platforms.

One could get into a discussion of IT monoculture, and why it is generally bad across the board for security, reliability, etc. But that's not the purpose of this post.

The advertisements are the purpose.

And what to do about them.

Are the economics sensible for you, the consumer of the content, and advertisement? Is the risk low enough that you can effectively ignore it as being "in the noise"?

Of course, what you can do is always register with the relevant site, subscribe to the information ... and they will still shoot adverts at your browser.

My argument is simple. The risk of bad actors and their injected adverts is too high not to use an ad blocker. Moreover, the value of the content on the other side of the paywall is rarely worth the cost.

This gets us to a deeper question. Is this business model viable?

Back when the interwebs started, everything was a bunch of websites, and served basic advertisements, which were often links or embedded content. Some people didn't like the embedded content (going off that website to another, potentially non-trusted site), and developed methods to block this.

That service, going out to another site to obtain/serve the advert, enhanced the risk. Website owners could insist that it wasn't their site that served malware. Even advertisement markets could claim that it wasn't them, that bad actors had uploaded malware laden ads.

That is, the risk was passed off to others, while the benefit remained with the website vendors and the advert markets they bought from.

Ad blockers generally stop this, when implemented correctly.

I was looking at a local site headline, which made comments about forthcoming weather events. I clicked it. It complained about my adblocker and offered to help me turn it off. It also offered subscriptions (which were overpriced compared to the value the site might bring, I browse it once to twice a week). The anti-adblocker was proudly "powered by Admiral".

So I closed that tab, and moved on with my day. Their take on information isn't the only one out there, and I do subscribe to a weather app or two on my phone, which offer better information, less prose, and more timely alerts.

I block adverts (as much as possible) on my phone(s) as well. The economics of ads there are even more compelling for advertisers and malware distributors than laptop/desktop systems. Apps I use daily, I buy or subscribe to (email, weather, etc.).

But, generally, no, I will not disable my adblocker for you. The onus is upon you the website to prove to me that your content has value, and at a high enough frequency that I can make my own judgement as to whether or not to subscribe.

Look at the model of Bari Weiss' The Free Press. Started on Substack (I think), and I found myself reading/consuming the content to the point that it actually made sense to subscribe and give them money.

Another favorite of mine is Holly Math Nerd, which I found due to a friend's note. Again, compelling long form content, I enjoyed reading, so I subscribed.

(Note to self: Make sure subscriptions are up to date for 2026)

At this time, I read ZeroHedge though I haven't subscribed, yet. Likely will in the coming year. I read LWN.net and subscribe.

The point I am making is that the value needs to be compelling for a subscription. The words must have meaning, and shouldn't be just staff writers writing filler with a very low density of actual information. Deep analysis should be thoughtful.

That I am willing to pay for.

Adverts? They can be, and are often laden with trackers, and other things meant to help advertisers reach me with more "compelling" advertisements. They can be blocked.

Either come up with compelling content, or go away.

My phone, my laptop/desktop, my car, ... my anything ... is not your advertisement platform. Honestly, I want to start charging advertisers for the bandwidth they consume, the screen real estate they use up, the delays they create while attempting to load sites ... all of it.

You can rent space on my devices. From me. Not from a website.

Otherwise, no. Just, no.