I have (no kidding) taken u-turns to see an interesting billboard. Anyway, the analogy is flawed: You still see the billboard, even if you don't read all of it - just like I see the ad, but may not really read it.

I produce no content, ad supported or otherwise. I've been on the WWW pretty much since day 1, so I know that ads have gotten worse. Still, if I decide to use a site, I use it according to how the owners want it to be used, or not at all. To me, that's respect, I fully understand that I am in the minority - which is why I didn't post this in the PopularOpinions sublemmy.

I was working with a different definition of 'look at'. When reading a magazine (according to my definition), you will look at the ad, because you never know whether a given page will contain an ad or editorial content. Your eyes will fall upon the ad, and then you move on, likely not really taking it in unless it manages to catch your eye. Same with me and web ads. Most will barely register, as the majority is really not that interesting - but sometimes, I will take a closer look, and very occasionally even click on one.

Little bit of column A, little bit of column B. There are sites I appreciate which don't allow you to pay to disable ads - so I sometimes take a look at one or two.There are others where the ads get annoying, so I stay away, or leave when I've had enough of 35 animations slowing down my web browser.

I have yet to see an ad that managed compromise the safety of my computer (knocks on wood). I am aware that this has happened, but I would be really cross with BitDefender if it happened to me.