"Have to"? That's a strong phrase. I don't have to do anything. I can filter the content delivered to me however I want. There's no EULA, no TOU, that lays down

"Have to"? That's a strong phrase. I don't have to do anything. I can filter the content delivered to me however I want. There's no EULA, no TOU, that lays down a quid pro quo of content for ads. "Nobody has ever made the claim that they posses ownership of your attention." I think you misunderstand the entire advertising business then. It is the selling of "impressions" of some slice of "attention", else it would have no value. If I am under no obligation to view an ad then I am under no obligation to have an ad made viewable to me, period. As for the term "suffering", way to derail an argument with semantics. That term was chosen because it fits in with the typical puritanical worldview of having to "earn" anything good by paying for it with toil. There's no value to me being even the slightest bit inconvenienced by an ad, zero. It's just an artifact of a broken accounting system and I refuse to let it rule over me like some bizarre kafkaesque daydream. I support content creators. I pay for content. I do my part. I spent 20 years looking at ads on the web. I'm done.