This thread like a lot of topics in this space is full of misinformation so let me dispel some common myths:

1. "I never click on ads"

Irrelevant and, more often than not, a lie. But let's assume it's the truth. Search advertising is an example of intent-based advertising. It's why it works so well. If you're searching for camera then a site that sells cameras (via an ad in the search results) is likely relevant.

Display advertising (which encompasses things like ads on the NY Times etc) on the other hand is not there specifically to drive a particular action. Brand awareness is a common use case.

Search advertising is sold on a CPC basis because it is intent based. Display advertising is by and large sold on a CPM basis. You don't get the impression and the publisher doesn't get paid. Some will label this "theft". Personally I find this like many real world analogies to be inappropriate in the digital world. Pejorative aside, it is taking money from the publisher and users have largely shown an unwillingness to pay for the content they consume directly.

2. "I don't trust [ad company X]"

The privacy argument. As this post shows, the temptation to resell your information, particularly by small players, is alluring. Frankly I'm more inclined to trust the Googles of the world than I am some guy who writes an extension. Google, for example, give you several options here.

- You can go to the Ads Preference Manager [1] and tailor your privacy settings.

- You can simply delete your cookies every hour/day/week/month/whatever.

3. "My ad blocking improves ads"

I don't know where this sprang from other than ignorance of advertising is bought and sold. No impression, no revenue. The marginal improvement in eCPC based on not showing you an ad is a) irrelevant because display advertising is often not action-based and b) no increase in revenue since it's a smaller pool of impressions.

Just today (still on the front page at the time of this post) is a submission about how people have a warped view of how much time others spend talking or thinking about them [2]. I believe the same distorted view of the world that most of us have also comes into play here.

As much hand-wringing as there is about privacy, when it comes to advertising, advertisers don't really care about you, the individual, as much as money seem to think. What advertisers care about is groups of people with a particular profile ("segment").

So I respect the approach of being paranoid (or at least diligent/skeptical) when it comes to online privacy but, as far as advertising goes anyway, it's largely theater.

I question the ethics of shifting the cost burden of the Internet onto others (ie tragedy of the commons) just because an image of a pair of shoes offends your delicate sensibilities is an interesting choice. I don't really click on ads either but I don't really care that ads for the Westin follow me around after I've gone to their site either (that's called remarketing or retargeting BTW).

Whatever the case I'd rather Google have my browsing history than Ghostery any day of the week.

I should note that I strongly believe in blocking obnoxious advertising. This includes, but is not limited to:

- popups (actual browser windows or just HTML elements that block content until dismissed)

- any video on a Web page that auto-plays

- any sound on a Web page that auto-plays

- most if not all interstitials

- anything Flash based just because I don't want anything Flash based running on my computer

It tends to be the sleazier side of the Internet that employ bad advertising practices like this but not entirely. Auto-playing media is particularly bad.
Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer in display advertising.

[1]: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5895648