They wanted to see information about how you use something they offer. You wanted something they offer. You declined, which is your choice, of course. I think you both lost that battle.
Some people simply can't be bothered to disable an ad blocker for non-ad related things. Others take a more extreme stance and consider analysis itself to be an affront. Everyone loses. Producers don't know what works or doesn't and consumers don't get the content they desire.
One thing I've noticed is that these comments tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume. It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation.
Also from people that feel entitled just to get services for free.
So if it isn't with money or advertising, it has to be whatever else they can extract from the users.
So let's imagine someone serves supper on the street (i.e. street food), with the setup that it's take it yourself service. The incentive is that people would line up and pay, but some people don't - so would such company owners have the right to collect saliva and extract DNA to sell such personal information to some other companies thereby extracting value?
I'm asking because paid services are treating me this way, and honestly I resent it.
We're talking about refusing clients who use adblockers. There are many ways to track usage that doesn't require that. I've implemented some myself. If the reason for refusal is because their tracking can't work with it it's doing it wrong.
> tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume
Produce what? And why does it matter? Imagine coming to a grocery store and being asked to change into store uniform, before you are allowed in, because it's easier for them to do business that way, marketing and stuff, and when you ask "WTF?" - they'd say "well, you don't know how it is to farm, do you? Did you ever milk a cow or harvested rye? You only consume, not produce, you lazy slacker, right? So either strip and wear the uniform or shut the heck up!". No thanks. I wouldn't visit such store. Would you?
> It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation.
I am not obliged to serve everybody's perspective. I have no obligation to make life easy for somebody's marketing department or support somebody's business model. It's their business to convince me to support it with my money, and, frankly, telling me I'm too ignorant to appreciate how wonderful they are is not going to work well. Telling me "we're too lazy/cheap to do it any other way, so please disable all security features in your browser, disregard your privacy and risk your safety because our marketing needs some nice graphs in their next monthly presentation" won't work either.
But I do get the content I desire. I'm quite capable of choosing by myself. And what's worse is that the opposite also happens -- I may get content that I actively resent.
You see, I bought an Amazon Fire TV stick the other day. I was dismayed to realise that it plays a (short) ad before showing me the content I asked for.
I pay for Amazon Prime. I resent them still forcing me to watch ads. I'm seriously considering whether the downside of enduring a 5s ad outweighs he convenience of the device (which is quite nice TBH). Because you're right, I do consider it an affront.
> Others take a more extreme stance and consider analysis itself to be an affront.
Indeed. Süddeutsche Zeitung, a newspaper which my family has been subscribed to since about the 1960s, now rejects me if I use an adblocker, and am not logged in. I've actually left their site because I resent being tracked and subjected to ads, after paying them a good chunk of money already.