However, I’ve long believed that ‘general’ news is absolute poison. On the off-chance you don’t think that, I recommend reading ‘Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear’ by Dan Gardner. It basically confirmed everything I had believed for a while but went to *much* more detail.

I know don’t know why I hadn’t thought the same way about advertising – I guess it’s because I think it has overall a less negative impact on society and me then news.

I think this post might have changed my opinion about ad-blocking. Cool!

This indeed is a fallacy. Some viewers choose to buy when otherwise they *would have spent that same money on something else*, and with better judgment. The money the advertising company takes in, it takes away from another business. There is no creation of value from advertising. Actually, a loss, because the lured buyer could have gotten more value from their money by taking the time to choose how to spend it, unbiased.

These external costs are currently huge, as most adverts are not relevant – and we’re forced to bear them (unless we use adblockers :)

Perhaps as advertisers get cleverer we’ll see adverts we’re more interested in, but until every advert I see is selling me something I really need (or want to experience) and can afford, then it’s pollution.

Anyway, to get this accurate, advertisers will need to keep collecting more and more personal data about us, invading our privacy.

And then, if every advert I see is something I need and can afford, I’ll quickly run out of money, so then no adverts are useful to me. Except perhaps debt management services.

The idea of low-friction payment (“unobtrusive”) is not compatible with the security needed to prevent fraud.

Seriously though, advertising is mind pollution. An ad-blocker is like breathing apparatus for your brain.

Do you complain about the advertising in the Yellow Pages? ;)