true. but as long as site owners use ad-providers that track me, I don't really care. I will gladly reconsider my blocking ads if and when ad-providers are used that don't do this.
maybe site-owners should pressure ad-providers to provide a track-free service ?
The lower targeting potential reduces the value of the ad site as it is sold down the chain, so if the site owners are using the ads to fund themselves they are unlikely to as for this en-mass as it would reduce their income.
Of course you could argue the moral and inconvenience cases as sites make these judgements when choosing advert networks already but "a bit of tracking" does not have the same moral weight to most as "porn and gambling" or "the annoyance of pop-ups/unders and drive-by install attempts" when deciding where they are comfortable to take money from.
Then why don't the sites provide the same options that you get with some ios apps. Default is free with ads, otherwise pay a nominal fee to remove the ads.
Without the latter the ads being compulsory is just enforcing advertising on your users without knowing if they even want it.
Probably because it is more work in that environment. To accept payments for an ad-free version you need to create and maintain some sort of payment processing, and of course user authentication & session management. With iOS apps a lot of this is baked in.
Also it is much easier (for a non-technical user at least) to just skip the ads on the web using browser plug-ins, than it is to get around them in an app, so to an extent this extra work may be wasted and the number of people who take up the "pay for no ads" option might not be enough to warrant the work that goes into maintaining it.
There are some sites that offer the "ads or pay" option so it presumably works out worthwhile for some sites, but I've not seen it often.
maybe site-owners should pressure ad-providers to provide a track-free service ?