How is what you are arguing different from, say, a coal miner in Appalachia arguing against subsidies for solar power? At this point their argument for coal is more existential than greedy. Wouldn't their argument be biased in an understandable way? Why should we not take that into account?
I'm not trying to bust your chops but I think your arguments have a lot of jargon and unnecessarily complex twists for what is essentially a simple position: you shouldn't access internet content without paying the price of advertising. Many disagree with that position for reasons that evoke the academic and open nature of the web.
We can do whatever we want to our machines to access content how we'd like. If it's not profitable to your corporation any longer than stop producing the content. The people will adapt the internet and create content in other ways. Very probably better ways - think Wikipedia, for example.
My argument is that you shouldn't access other people's content without respecting their wishes. Simple as that.
Yes, you can do whatever you want to your property. But you can't do whatever you want to other people's property unless they explicitly consent. (That's sort of what laws are there for...) And these people aren't explicitly consenting.
Also, you didn't answer my question. Where is the bias that you're seeing? When I'm saying let the ad industry die if it need die, I fail to see this implicit bias you're speaking of.
So, which argument are you trying to make? Respect the content creator's wishes or let the ad industry die? Would it make sense to you that those are largely exclusive positions?
If you work for a company that profits from an advertising platform and you argue that the logical extension of an ad blocker is a content blocker all you are doing is strongly asserting the intellectual property rights of your employer.
What you imply when you make that argument is that users must acquiesce to your TOS as this hypothetical content blocker is, on its face, absurd.
If you wanted to clarify your position further, perhaps you could state to this community whether or not you would support the extension of the DMCA to ad-blockers? Should it be illegal to use one? This would go a long way towards clarifying your positions which, up until now, are somewhat confusing - i.e., it's much simpler for us to conclude that you argue for advertising networks simply because you work for one.
If web sites started serving an HTTP header saying "browsers with ad blockers are not welcome to view this content", I would allow my browser to honor that request. That's more convenient than solving the AI problem of identifying and filtering out all the garbage content that exists for the sole purpose of drawing eyeballs to ads. Just tell me up front that it's garbage.
I submit that the most valuable thing being sold here is my eyeballs. And the content provider is auctioning them off to the highest bidder via the ad networks.
So, if the content providers and ad networks want to work that way, they need to respect my choice to be more selective in how my eyeballs are being sold.
If they don't want to do that, then they can choose to go out of business.
I'm not trying to bust your chops but I think your arguments have a lot of jargon and unnecessarily complex twists for what is essentially a simple position: you shouldn't access internet content without paying the price of advertising. Many disagree with that position for reasons that evoke the academic and open nature of the web.
We can do whatever we want to our machines to access content how we'd like. If it's not profitable to your corporation any longer than stop producing the content. The people will adapt the internet and create content in other ways. Very probably better ways - think Wikipedia, for example.