> I can believe this for you, though that you did not notice the ads here makes me wonder whether you might be missing tasteful ads elsewhere? But it's definite

> I can believe this for you, though that you did not notice the ads here makes me wonder whether you might be missing tasteful ads elsewhere? But it's definitely not true for most people: a web without advertising funding is a web that the vast majority of people who currently use the web would enjoy much less. "Most people" argument is generally a bad one as it takes a point in time statistic vs a first principles merit-based observation. For example "most people" enjoyed smoking in 1960s, which can at best be a point in time statistic and in no way a good argument for smoking (actually it is a terrible argument). Whether you can make a moral based argument for ads requires at least moral consistency. If you can truly say "I strongly believe ads are a driving force for the good in the society, and therefore I also choose to expose my kids to ads from a young age and would not mind them one day living in an apartment that is running ads on their walls 24/7" then you can at least hold a morally consistent position and I would applaud you for that. I of course completely disagree with this position, and am doing whatever I can to protect my kids from exposure to ads from young age by limiting TV, paying for YouTube Premium, having them use an ad-free search engine, use a browser that has built in ad blocker and so forth. I teach them that companies never give away things for free unless it benefits them in some other way, and that in life you always get what you pay for.