No argument with any of that, Mr T. I guess the only question mark might be this:

Those who run direct ads and do it responsibly, and are targeted for their SITE and their USERS, will probably see no problems.

There seems to be an assumption that coders of direct ads will use their powers for good rather than evil, and the publishers who hire them will adhere to more responsible standards. Only time will tell on that score.

There seems to be an assumption that coders of direct ads will use their powers for good rather than evil, and the publishers who hire them will adhere to more responsible standards. Only time will tell on that score.

An amusing assumption yourself, mr. t. :)

Evil is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Those who can, and do, monetize their sites without third party ad servicing are not, as far as I know inherently evil. And, generally, because they do that much on their own, actually have a website built with passion, clarity, and value, and can often build a community of users. In which case, they will be responsible. You do not offend your users and survive the long term.

Oh they've certainly caused it but it's adblockers who have legitimised it. The adblock lobby has told users that ads are nasty and should be blocked. They haven't really said which ads - just "ads".

The only "lobby" adblockers have are their users. Nobody needs to be told when they are annoyed enough to take action.
And have you actually looked at a real life adblocker recently? The good ones offer you a wide choice of rulesets, so that everybody can fine tune their blocking as they please. Nobody is being told that they have to block "all ads".

I have been using adblockers since long before they became popular. And there's a number of quality sites where I disable it, because I can see they need the (unobtrusive) ads to make a living. Any site trying to force me to do so will not see me returning, though.

The only "lobby" adblockers have are their users.

I suggest you read the threads here, as well as some of the mainstream media coverage.

And have you actually looked at a real life adblocker recently?

Several, including the recent iOS releases.

I have been using adblockers since long before they became popular. And there's a number of quality sites where I disable it, because I can see they need the (unobtrusive) ads to make a living.

The first thing we should avoid is presuming that everyone else will behave in a similar way to us. Of the 50+ million adblock users, how many do you think are concerned or responsible enough to allow 'acceptable ads' or whitelist ads on their favourite sites, versus those who set and forget to block everything? I'm not sure, however I can point to trials I did with Pagefair that showed more than 50%+ of adblock users were blocking every ad, without exception.

There are no "pre-installed adblockers"<= name a browser that has an adblocker "pre-installed"..or an OS that has an ad blocker "pre-installed" ?

uc-browser by default block block ads and it is quite popular among mobile users visiting my sites.

[i.imgur.com...]

Browsers with AdBlockers pre-installed?

Try my Google Chrome, which I only use once in awhile to check different things. I just clicked on the AdBlock logo which is a red hexagonal stop sign, top right hand corner. It took me to here.

[getadblock.com ]

My Chrome is exactly as installed, I have no add-ons, nothing, plain vanilla. I doubt if I have used it more than a dozen times - I just don't like it - period. Offers me no advantage over IE11 and FF 41.02 whatsoever, yet minus many valuable features I need.

I appreciate that people stepped up with examples of pre-installed ad blockers. I can't be a know-it-all because I don't. It's irresponsible to suggest word as gospel when in fact it's not.

.their rise is not down to "techies" evangelising..it is down to the increasing use by ad networks of the all singing all dancing data heavy ads..and that they have not bothered policing their ads for malware..the 3rd party networks have made the rod for the backs of the sites that depend on ad revenue..

Exactly correct in all respects. I'd add that it's also a way for ad blocking companies to create a business model to earn money from letting selected players through. Whether this is an independent ad blocker, or a teleco blocking ads on mobile, or Apple on iOS. They will choose which ads or promotion they want to get through. After all, it's their ecosystem, and we're using it.

Back to the OP, ad blockers will not kill the Internet, it's here to stay. What it's likely to do is to create new forms of revenue earning. Ad-Supported Products and Services: Has it Had its Day [webmasterworld.com]

Ad blockers are unlikely to kill the Internet.

There is an old (but very goo) discussion on WebmasterWorld where some members (can't remember right now) talked about traffic and quality content, it didn't even involve the ads or adblocker issue. They did an amazing job in quality describing how hobby loving people, teachers, even students created good sites.

Those didn't have income, didn't have ads, in fact most of them had to pay to keep those sites alive, some hosted stuff on universities and it was good, very good. That thread would be very good reading now, it didn't kill the internet, those things WERE the internet and made it stronger if we could say such word.

Then geocities came to be, and angelfire making easier to put stuff online. The ad blocker thing won't kill the internet, it's people. Seriously no rant here: take a look at this forum, the percentage of contributions is not the same, now things like "yea me too" or "that's an stupid idea" count as comments? it's people who kill stuff, not ad blockers.

They did an amazing job in quality describing how hobby loving people, teachers, even students created good sites.
Those didn't have income, didn't have ads, in fact most of them had to pay to keep those sites alive, some hosted stuff on universities and it was good, very good.

In fell right into the category you depicted, particularly "in fact most of them had to pay to keep those sites alive" - however I HAD to monetise my site by becoming an Amazon affiliate to earn commissions on my book recommendations.

Massive increases in site visitors very quickly blew my site costs right out the window. Bandwidth back in those 56K days was incredibly expensive in Australia in 1998 - once you went beyond your limit, and the next level up was indeed costly.

Even with an Amazon income... AdSense then came along and proved a boon.

Ironically, I pay less today for everything measured in GB's, not MB's than I did in 1998. Amazing.

Had an epiphany this afternoon (hours ago, just now back to web play and visiting my routine sites) when one of the girls in house (roomate, 63, the youngest, remarked to other girl 67, and both younger than I am) re: watching hulu and the three minute blank/silence when they chose "show ads now for ad free experience". They don't know about the adblockers I have installed on the home network, and yet they do, sorta. They did note that if they didn't select that choice they got ads in the middle of their shows. I mention this for those who might want to check hulu's code to see how that might happen. I'm not particularly interested in doing same, but did test it, and it does work that way.

The EPIPHANY that I indicated happened for me, as noted above, has nothing to do with ad blockers:

The internet cannot be killed. Ads are a bolt on to the beast, always have been. There are other factors which MIGHT "kill the beast" (Eagles, Hotel California) such as ICANN, UN and national governments... but the net itself cannot die, and ad blockers are only of interest to those bolt on sites that require bolts.

A philosophy post with a minor tech aside: those who might want it, might reverse enginer hulu's code. In one fashion it can be blocked, in another it cannot. Have fun!

(All machines in this report are Firefox, NoScript, and Ad Blocker Plus with extremely limited permissions... and I mean extreme)