> the publisher tells you they don't want your visit if you don't want their ads Well if you say it like that, it almost sounds harmless! But that's not what t

> the publisher tells you they don't want your visit if you don't want their ads Well if you say it like that, it almost sounds harmless! But that's not what they're doing. What they are doing, is encouraging/begging people to disable their adblocker--which functions as a security (and privacy) feature of the browser--instead of telling people to go away if they want to keep it on. Of course there's no way to nicely word an honest message that communicates "adblockers are not welcome". Especially not for a site that depends on advertising revenue, it would never get past the marketing/editors. That's a big part of the problem; the majority of advertising depends on skirting the line between honesty and dishonesty, and this attitude tends to seep into the businesses that are so dependent on advertising. This becomes an even bigger trap if their content-quality is on the low end to begin with. I'm not familiar enough with Forbes to say that is the case for them (IIRC it's not that bad, is it?), but consider all those really shitty clickbait sites with listicles and blogspam. That's what those advertising dollars buy us. Who is more likely to stop producing content if advertising revenue drops? High-volume low-effort clickbait writers, or the "quality content" writers that actually care about the topic they write about?