though at this point it is kinda predictable - all news sites, except the ones with paywalls (and if you haven't bought the subscription, then its pointless visiting them). All information sources, except a few notable exceptions (usually aggregators like HN/Reddit, but also Medium).
Everything else divides into SaaS products, personal blogs and random shit. Random shit is usually ad-supported, the rest are usually fine.
it's all sort of moot anyway - the ads model is crap and getting worse, and businesses are going to have to move to something else soon. I don't think we'll have this problem long.
> How do you know a site will have content you want?
I'm often told in advance, by virtue of it coming up in a search result, promoted link, friends post, etc.
"This site contains adverts that perform obtrusive tracking" is seldom mentioned before or during the visit, the only way to know is by trying to block all such things and seeing the site fail if it tries to block the blocking.
Sometimes the advance information of content relevance is deceptive of course, and this often coincides with darkest patterns in the advertising/tracking.
when a site identifies my ad blocker and specifically asks that i disable it, then i have to decide either to momentarily disable my ad blocker and view the content, or leave the site.
the Big Media people don't want to be so upfront about their restrictions. "if they don't know about the restrictions, they won't get angry."
It is not the ads I/we dislike. It is the tracking. If we go to <insert name of IT news website> and we would see a laptop as on a laptop related article, that would be ok. But if we then to to Winter-ski.xyz and still see the same laptop as, then we no like!
