Ads are fine in the right context. For example, I don't mind seeing ads on Craigslist. Or an ad for a blogger's book or consulting services in the sidebar of a thoughtful blog post. But not, for example, affiliate links for a product in a pop-up over an obviously fake "review" consisting of stock photos and published specs and keyword-rich filler text. I would tolerate ads on news and other entertainment sites if they didn't go so insanely overboard. Tracking cookies and beacons are unjustifiable in any context.

I for one don't hate ads, I hate bad ads, privacy infringing ads, and distracting ads.

And my livelihood had nothing to do with ads.

I often wonder if ads are worth the trouble for most advertisers. Sure ads on Google, when I'm already look for a product makes sense, but besides that, I doubt they are worth the money and effort.

Most companies seems to advertise online, because the competitors do and you can't prove that they don't work. A large number of advertising sponsored sites would have to reevaluate their business model, if the people moving physical goods decide that ad-networks aren't worth the money. Sadly the only alternative seems to be some sort of micro-payments, which have yet to materialize.

Online ads, including targeted ads, isn't something I have much faith in. I have yet to see it work, outside search engines.

Based on previous discussions on HN, it would be incorrect to say that "HN hates ads so much" (1) and that many HN readers do indeed protect their investments in ads - it pays them directly. To attack ads, attacks their wallets and thus it is only natural to protect ones investment.

edits: (1) However, its only recently that theres been this major discussion about ad blockers, and perhaps those who are not opposed to them are either changing their view, or are keeping silent as the majority opinion against ads is currently dominating the discussion.

technically and indirectly of any Google employee?