Adblock and Brave: the online advertising war

Why blocking ads has become an ideological decision

Half an hour trying to read a business news story: the article loads, a video starts playing by itself, a banner covers half the screen and a cookie window that won't close. Then another ad. And another. It's the daily experience of millions of readers, and the final straw came this very week: amid the eclipse frenzy, the conversation about how to dodge advertising crossed paths with the usual conspiracy theorists.

The solution many turn to is an ad blocker or a browser like Brave, which filters ads by default. What looks like a technical tool has become a battlefield: those who block ads are treated, depending on the moment, as penny-pinchers, radicals or nostalgics for a cleaner internet. Some claim that blocking ads is an extremist stance; others reply that the blame lies with internet users for not using better tools. Guaranteed controversy.

A business biting its own tail

The dilemma has an economic root. Online media depend on advertising to survive; ad revenue funds the content the reader doesn't pay for. But poorly managed advertising drives readers away, who then install a blocker and, in turn, reduce the outlet's revenue. A vicious circle. Digital consumption data suggest that blocker use keeps growing, while websites respond with more pop-ups and more video. The result is a clash between two needs: monetizing content and reading without being overwhelmed.

Amid the fray, some boast of having silenced more than 1,000 annoyances in their digital life. That figure, subjective but striking, says more about collective exasperation than any audience study. For now, the advertising model is still breathing: the ads are still there, and so are the blockers. Nobody has won the war, but more and more people have decided not to fight it and simply walk away from the battlefield.