>Because you don't get to just chose the content on a page you load that you want to see. Of course you do. That's a big part of the success of the web. curl +

>Because you don't get to just chose the content on a page you load that you want to see. Of course you do. That's a big part of the success of the web. curl + grep for a very basic example, wallabag, hosts file, firebug, flashblock, disabling images, disabling scripts, disabling animations, opera's content blocker to cite a few others. You can't tell if a page has ads until you get there, and some ads may be injected in every pages by your isp, your browser or various malwares so basically what you're saying is do not surf the web at all. Sorry, not sorry the actual solution to not be invaded by ads is to use and adblocker. It is a very broken assumption that people implicitly agree to see ads. It is actually the other way around historically, when reading a newspaper or a magazine and encountering ads I can skip them without even looking, I could even cut away the couple pages that I've interest in. Actually it's not even limited to ads, it applies to the whole thing. If an article doesn't interest me I will just turn the page. As you said the news article is already paid by ads so there's no need to see them. Until you factor in tracking that is. In a newspaper the advertiser paid the newspaper to print ads along with articles and that's about it because there's no way to track what user look at in a newspaper. On a website, advertising is just the visible tip of a huge tracking iceberg. Once again "your failed business model is not my problem". If you hoped you'd make money and you don't because you made bad assumptions, how am I concerned ?