Stop being insanely obtuse. I stated clearly:

>> Regardless of if I pay or not I'm gonna get upsells and ads.

I'll say it again for your ad-tech addled brain only rivalling vomit-inducing people like prabhakar raghavan:

If there was an option to have zero, zero, even minutely intrusive ads/tracking, then I will be willing to pay a price for it. If this is not an option, then I have zero remorse for your wasted efforts/loss of revenue.

Tell me _one_ news website today offering this feature? I will pay for it.

https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001712553-Ads-...

> Advertising remains a critical part of our business model of supporting independent journalism, as such, we do not offer ad-free subscriptions.

Even the ones that _do_ have a half-decent, "ad-free", paid option, if you actually pay and visit their website, you will be sure to see ads related events in the network tab. Disqualified.

For the case of tracking, like I (again) stated above: if my library goes over to my travel agency telling them what travel guides I have been looking at, I have zero remorse for the library's revenue stream, even if they satisfy all of the requirements above (such as offering a completely intrusive-ad-free paid subscription).

If there are alternatives that don't indulge in these completely unethical practices, I would love to, and I do, use them. However, there are exactly zero news websites like that, so it leaves me with no choice but to "steal" whenever I read an article.

Off-topic, but I can't help snort at:

> independent journalism

Finally, if your company ever does something like using Wi-fi SSIDs as an alternative when I intentionally disable location services in my phone, then it goes in the bin. No recourse, sorry.

> If there was an option to have zero, zero, even minutely intrusive ads/tracking, then I will be willing to pay a price for it. If this is not an option, then I have zero remorse for your wasted efforts/loss of revenue.

This is already the case for most newspapers. Helas, most users prefer the free but ad-ridled version.

> Even the ones that _do_ have a half-decent, "ad-free", paid option, if you actually pay and visit their website, you will be sure to see ads related events in the network tab. Disqualified.

You should report this to the publishers. This is usually and genuinely not what they would like to happen if they provide a paid version.

> For the case of tracking, like I (again) stated above: if my library goes over to my travel agency telling them what travel guides I have been looking at, I have zero remorse for the library's revenue stream, even if they satisfy all of the requirements above (such as offering a completely intrusive-ad-free paid subscription).

Most of the time the data itself will never be sold. What happens is that a brand or ad agency will buy pre-filtered traffic or ask the publisher to operate a campaign on specific user segments. This means that the data never leaves the site that collected it.

There are of course external companies that become third-party data providers as a business model like credit card companies or telecoms. But even then, data providers try to protect their own data by operating campaigns themselves rather than selling the data.

> If there are alternatives that don't indulge in these completely unethical practices, I would love to, and I do, use them. However, there are exactly zero news websites like that, so it leaves me with no choice but to "steal" whenever I read an article.

Just as an added piece of context, due to publishers surviving (and I really mean it) thanks to advertisement income, they also have little in-house tech talent that can actually make sur that things like "absolutely 0-tracking if it's a paying user" is correctly implemented.

Do what you will with this information.

> Finally, if your company ever does something like using Wi-fi SSIDs as an alternative.

Only mobile apps might have the SSID (and only with granular user consent on app install). Websites do not have access to this information.