> those ads pay my salary, as well as the other full time editors, professionals writers, and dedicated server costs It depends. If your ads are pay-per-click,

> those ads pay my salary, as well as the other full time editors, professionals writers, and dedicated server costs It depends. If your ads are pay-per-click, and if I would never click your ads anyway, did I hurt you in any way by not loading those ads in the first place? Pay-per-view is a different problem, but I have yet to see pay-per-view ads that I consider non-intrusive. After all, ads need to be intrusive in order to generate clicks. There's a conflict of interest right there. > The modern Internet MUST have Javascript. So when you use NoScript, you’re breaking the Internet. No, I'm not breaking the Internet. I'm only degrading (or improving, depending on who you ask) my own experience of the Internet, which I have every right to do. Just like I have every right to tell my browser to display all text in green-on-black 12pt Courier, or in any of the thousands of unexpected ways in which a computer program can consume HTML. If I broke into your server and removed a couple of script elements from your home page, that would be breaking the Internet. > So even if a tracking script does follow some of your browsing habits, is it such a big deal? At the very worst end of the scale ... they’re being used for what’s called a behaviourally-targeted market. I don't want behaviorally-targeted marketing, and if you'd like to convince me otherwise, you'd better give me a better argument than "I wanna make money." Plenty of honest people have made plenty of money without tracking people's behavior across websites. Just calling your opposition "conspiracy theorists" will not do. If it is "evil" to make HTTP requests to some resources and not others, I would gladly be evil. If you don't like this, you are welcome to adjust your business strategies so that your main audience is too dumb to use AdBlock.