The issue of whether users have a right to modify content to suit their personal preferences and convenience gets me started. If my reference here is too obtuse, I am describing the capability various technology providers offer to avoid ads. I had calmed myself down, but then a post by ex-Apple leader Jean-Louis Gassee got me started again.
Whatever spin you want to put on the presence of online advertising (it takes up valuable screen space on mobile devices, it steals my personal information, etc), the point is you can easily avoid this content. To take the parts (the content) you want and avoid the parts that offend you (the ads) seems somewhat hypocritical to me. The interpretation that the provider is somehow attempting to do you harm is unlikely incorrect. The provider is most likely attempting to generate some revenue from ad revenue. I would guess some do so in ways that we all find obnoxious. I find an entire column of banner ads particularly obnoxious, but poor design is a choice some choose to embrace.
I understand there are those who explain the “free” business model (Chris Anderson). I have read the books. In the education space, some promote themselves as conference presenters and workshop leaders via their “free” online content. Let me make it clear that anyone who wants to offer free content as a means of promotion or demonstration of competence has made a reasonable choice. The point is – it is their choice to make and not those of the consumer.
Yes, my content does contain ads. This is mostly a matter of principle on my part as the revenue generated has never covered the monthly cost associated with paying for server space, etc. So, I respect your right to ignore whatever online content you want to ignore. I have difficulty with anyone else deciding the circumstances under which my content is offered.
I welcome your comments on this issue.