The site owners have different values and notices than any one writer or journalist. The problem with ads is they became too intrusive. So ad blockers block all, including on respectful websites. It's better for consumers to block all, but journalism does with no revenue and most don't want to pay. We don't yet have a middle ground.
Somebody should make a standard for non-intrusive, not spying, ethical ads (no clickbaits, no contrasting colors, related to the article, etc. etc.).
Adblocks would have websites that strictly follow these guidelines in a whitelist by default (opt-out).
That's the middle ground. But, I doubt any big ad company like Google or Meta would push for it, if not against.
Adblock Plus did something similar to that.
Then it turned out they were taking bribes to whitelist some providers and then we're back to square one.
The site owners have different values and notices than any one writer or journalist. The problem with ads is they became too intrusive. So ad blockers block all, including on respectful websites. It's better for consumers to block all, but journalism does with no revenue and most don't want to pay. We don't yet have a middle ground.
Somebody should make a standard for non-intrusive, not spying, ethical ads (no clickbaits, no contrasting colors, related to the article, etc. etc.).
Adblocks would have websites that strictly follow these guidelines in a whitelist by default (opt-out).
That's the middle ground. But, I doubt any big ad company like Google or Meta would push for it, if not against.
Adblock Plus did something similar to that.
Then it turned out they were taking bribes to whitelist some providers and then we're back to square one.
Oh well.
That's why adblock wanted to by default allow not annoying ads, but there was a big backlash and other adblockers became more popular like ublock