That whole industry needs a master reset
.. or at least a boot up a place where it seriously hurts.
Be honest, all shenanigans beyond an animated GIF have but one purpose: to steal your attention away from the article that brought you to the website in the first place (which may exist for ad revenue, so that's a bit chicken & egg).
If there was a way to guarantee that the only active code I'd get in my browser is that of the site, and not some flash w*nkfest that some marketeer has decided to inflict on my eyeballs, when the only tracking on a site is an anonymised or accounts-focused tracking by the site owner itself that doesn't go anywhere else, when looking at an ad doesn't result in being served the same all over again, when social media buttons do not also act as mini spies for their faraway owners of my presence - THEN I will consider allowing dropping ad blocking for the sites that matter.
As it stands, even El Reg cannot guarantee that their ad providers won't send provide the next IF*ckYou virus in advertising malware, and that's a serious indictment indeed.*
No, I don't feel guilty for blocking ads. If you base your income on ad revenue, it may literally pay to pay some attention to the consequences of what you do to your audience. If you don't, well, that strikes me as a market opportunity.
So there.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
