No, we're not talking about "the free press" going under. We're talking about news (and "news" and entertainment and…) sites that take money from malware pusher

No, we're not talking about "the free press" going under. We're talking about news (and "news" and entertainment and…) sites that take money from malware pushers. Think about that. If your news source is willing to take money from folks attacking your machine, what does that say about their trustworthiness? Sure, go on about the wall between church and state, or that it is the ad network and not blog, but there is a reason some of the larger corporations occasionally go on media buying sprees. I'm not sure that it is strictly impossible to be financially dependent on others and maintain a completely independent voice, but I can't think of an example. It is a suboptimal situation. I get that publishers are ending up with horrible tradeoffs. At the same time, if faced with a close friend who has ebola, I'm going to be incredibly sympathetic while also keeping quarantine. I also heard another complaint about my approach, which was that if I avoid sites like Forbes, why do I still need an ad blocker? And of course, the answer is that I rarely bump in to things or stumble, but still like guardrails on steps.