> That's a strange interpretation and companies are free to do what they want. You are absolutely correct! Companies are free to do as they see fit. And consum

> That's a strange interpretation and companies are free to do what they want. You are absolutely correct! Companies are free to do as they see fit. And consumers are free to do things like block ads or not engage with publishers as they see fit. I've run content sites that ran on advertising. I've negotiated with advertisers. I deeply, genuinely understand the value ad networks provide to publishers. As a consumer, and as an responsible professional software engineer, I am also concerned with the privacy practices and abuse enabled by many third-party inclusions. More than one website has been compromised by such things. If buyers choose not to do direct buys, then publishers wish to consider the possibilities that could be realized with a different model that doesn't hinge on being cavalier with user privacy and security. No commercial internet publisher has a right to exist. No commercial internet publisher has a right to derive revenue from abusing their users. Users, on the other hand, have in the eyes of some basic rights to security and privacy. As opposed to the desire of marketing to use a fifth shitty third-party tracker. You're right. Publishers and advertisers are free to do as they wish. They just might want to consider showing some respect for users is all.