Commenters are confusing ads versus tracking.

Remember that it is possible to track users without the use of ads.

A browser written by an organization that profits from ad revenue or collecting user information (hereafter "well-known browser") will load elements, e.g., images, in a web page automatically.

No user interactivity is required. The user need not "click" anything. The user may not even be able to see the element loaded.

Email clients supporting HTML email can do the same thing, loading images automatically, hence suporting a method of tracking.

This is a very old method but still widely used.

What if the user is not using a "well-known browser"? What if those elements will not be loaded automatically? Will these methods of tracking still work?

All methods of tracking, other than IP addresses in access logs, rely on assumptions. Many rely on assumptions about usage of a "well-known browser".

The assumption re: automatically loaded elements, "beacons" or whatever one wants to call them, is that the user is using a "well-known browser" that will load elements automatically.
If the user is not using a "well-known browser", all bets are off?

Another example is the HTTP header "fingerprint". HTTP headers are tied to "well-known browsers". What if suddenly all users decided to only send the same minimal headers? In the way that some server software might try to hide its version (e.g., BIND) imagine that users decided to hide their client software version.

Aside from IP addresses, many methods of web tracking are heavily reliant on assumptions about use of "well-known browsers" and the behavior of those browsers. Could these assumptions ever fail to be true? Can users think for themselves?

The www as a medium for exchanging information or even doing commerce does not necessarily require the use of any particular browser. That "requirement" is only imposed by certain sites on the www, for reasons that may ultimatley benefit the site owner more than its users. No such "requirement" is imposed by the www itself.

Thinking of this in terms of "a carrot and a stick", as far as I have seen using the www since 1993 there is only a carrot in the form of a "well-known browser". There is no stick. Users are free to make HTTP requests using any client they choose, including ones that do not expose them to advertising or tracking. Such clients may not require an "adblocker" because they do not requests elements automatically.

There used to be and perhaps there still is a never-ending battle between commercial entities over which is the "default browser" in a graphical OS. Certain companies tried to coax users into using certain "well-known browsers". There was even a large antitrust case in the US over this issue.

The implication seemed to be that if not set by default users might otherwise choose some other HTTP client to interact with the www. In those days one company wanted to sell a browser as enterprise software. Today that browser is owned by a "non-profit" organization of salaried employees. Other well-known browsers are owned by "for profit" (subject to taxation) commercial entities with thousands of employees.

Today, these well-known browsers are "free". And yet these browsers are written by salaried employees, not open-source project volunteers. These entities continue to market their "free" browsers aggressively to users.

As a user, ask yourself why.

Ads? Tracking?