In addition "once in a while" does not seem to be very reassuring
Since then I am a follower of the Tao of Backup/
If you are panicking because of the additional possibility of cross site scripting then imagine what will happen when web sites starts to serve ads under their own domain name to avoid sneaky ad-blockers. Of course this would be unnecessary if ad blockers were not sneaky, that is they would send a HTTP header or at least a JavaSript DOM object indicating that ad blocking is ON. Therefore the site could decide what to do: reject the user, offer limited content, offer subscription or micropayment, nothing.
I also do not understand what are you doing on a website like Slashdot which is full with user generated content.
And by the way, I also do not understand how did you come to the great idea that I am completely unaware of cross site scripting.
Advertisers need to make their adds useful to the people. Allow people to specify what they want to know about,
This is exactly what all ad companies try to do. And this is also exactly why many people hate them: this goes against privacy. In order to serve ads which are interesting to you they have to know what is interesting to you...
You can turn off the AdBlock's "trusted Ads" feature if you want to.
Most people will not do this. Otherwise the major ad firms wouldn't pay to AdBlock. The same for blocking the most effective ads: if only the least profitable ads will remain, than ad firms will not pay real money to AdBlock. But lets hope that some miracle happen and they invent the ad format which is profitable and unnoticeable at the same time.
Clearly you have no idea how the Web works
I am a web application developer. In addition to that I maintain 50+ servers. Including web application servers, HTTP servers, proxies, DNS servers. May I suggest to you to not buy lottery?
No, you're wrong, they will never do that - it will cost them in server hardware and bandwidth to host all that advertising. It would create massive logistical issues with advertiser billing
At the worst case the bandwidth cost will be doubled. This will be a setback for everybody (including visitors), except infrastructure firms. But this will not stop the transition, I know very well the network traffic prices. I am sure Google and others will do everything to make the whole thing technically the easiest. The smallest sites wiill quit. Other small sites may need to move to a CDN or PaaS like service. It might be possible that they have to select a single ad company. This strong dependency will make them weak, large ad companies become even stronger.
not to mention new vectors for click fraud
If this will be the case, then again, this will be a problem for the small sites, which do not bring enough profit for the ad firms to justify the larger costs of auditing.
The whole ad-blocking movement is as counterproductive as it can be. I can consider it as a demonstration, but than again it would be worthwhile only if people were prepared to pay for content. But they are not. The best example is Flattr. Almost nobody use it, even though it is mostly targeted to technical people and it is a very easy and cheap way to support for example the open source products you use.
If you want to show me an ad on your site, then, fine, show me an ad on your site. But I'm not going somewhere else to fetch it.
I think it is an irrevelant technical difference if the ad is coming from a google server or from a - maybe google - server leased by the web page creator. Anyway, now that the percentage of ad blocking users exploded I am sure that within one year a few web hosts start to proxy ads. I am afraid you will be the only one who will be happy with this solution.
There's always other places to get the news, stories, etc.
I am afraid you are a bit too optimist. Most of the known web is ad supported. The only major site which is ad free is Wikipedia. But I do pay to Wikipedia every year. If you mean that you go to a subscription based alternative, than you are still too optimistic: in that case you and me are the only two people I know who intend to pay for an ad-free website. This will not be enough
If I remember well, devices which removed ads automatically was proven illegal. PVRs which made it possible to fast forward on ads were not.
If you cannot see "any" similarity than I give up here.
I am sure that morally and ethically ad blocking is wrong. On the other hand I am free to not visit a page. And I do this, I abandoned several sites where I was a regular visitor for years. It is not fair to enjoy the content but do not pay the price.
I am not sure that you are legally free to block ads. If - similarly to the EU consent cookies - web pages would start with a popup saying "you agree that read the page without ad blocking LEAVE/STAY" and you choose STAY, then I guess you legally accepted ads.
"One day I woke up and discovered that I was in love with tripe." -- Tom Anderson