> I don't like ads, but I like my free content, and ads are an acceptable way of financing it
When looking at that tradeoff most people seem to agree with you (or don't care to think about it), and some people disagree with you.
A note: So if you just feel like you don't care to make this same choice, I'm not talking to you and am just using your comment as a jumping off point. But you seem to be defending the advertising status quo on HN, and if you are then I am talking to you.
I've never found "But if people start making these choices my business model stops working!" be a particularly defensible argument to make. This is maybe the single place online where it is least needed for me to make this point, right?
But apparently not, especially when it's the so-called disruptors who are making it. This is a potentially popular service to provide people at the moment, the ability to protect themselves from their online habits being used to build profiles of them, and it would destroy the incumbent business model (advertising supported content using click tracking). This sounds like classic disruption to me, doing something good for the consumer [1] while opening up a huge gap for a new and inventive business model to fill the gap.
As everyone is no doubt aware at this moment, there is no ethical argument to be made to save this "content" as a whole. The fact we call it "content" at all means no one really needs to say this do they? It is not saving journalism, that is still dying. I'd put better odds on the next business model that emerges saving investigative journalism, because corporate sponsorship was the stupidest idea for saving it possible anyway.
[1] If you think that using personal information built on surveillance in order to influence purchasing decisions is pro-consumer you are lying to yourself. It is effective and profitable. As is combining it with fake reviews and lifestyle marketing using shame and FOMO.