Non tracking ads used to be the norm, but two things got in the way:<p>1. Any kind of even vaguely targeted advertising is better than none. It's common sport on HN to jeer about how badly the ads that people see are targeted towards them but non-targeted is so much worse. It's ads for restaurants that won't be in my area for decades (if ever). Male and female specific medicines, and on and on.<p>2. The rampant abuse and fraud on the part of the publishers. Much of the js and tracking on sites is not about _you_ so much as making sure that the site that the ads are embedded on isn't just a VPS that someone is flogging with bot traffic.
Interesting that WaPo's free option seems to be in violation of GDPR. It has no option to reject personalized ads and third party trackers - you can simply accept and view the site, or go away:<p><a href="http://prntscr.com/joqj3d" rel="nofollow">http://prntscr.com/joqj3d</a><p>That seems to be in direct conflict with GDPR provisions that force web publishers to give people the option to reject personalized ads while still giving them the services they were trying to access. I'm sure that when regulators come calling, they'll claim "legitimate interest," but if this model is acceptable under GDPR, then almost nothing has actually changed under it.
Lets see it is $6 with tracking ads or $9 with no ads. So with non-tracking ads, it will cost somewhere between the two. Is there really a need for that. Honestly if I was going to pay $6, I would just pay a little more and get no ads.
<a href="https://officesnapshots.com" rel="nofollow">https://officesnapshots.com</a> here.<p>This describes us as we sell our own ads, self-host them, and only allow static jpg graphics.<p>After changing our MailChimp signup form and removing sharing button scripts I think the only 3rd party things we use are Google analytics (now with anonymous IP settings activated) and a google font and jquery cdn.<p>For me, the goal has been to create a site that attracts a specific audience and target the ads based on the content.
There are some missing steps between the idea that Post readers (at least say they) want non-tracking-based ads more and the idea that they're worth more. Readers may well be willing to pay some amount more for tracker-less ads, at least until they experience the joys of seeing that most ads are for things they can't use. That doesn't mean that they're willing to pay <i>as much</i> more as what those eyes are worth to advertisers.