There are several sides to this, ex:

Is it ethical to advertise something that users (or indexers) expect to be freely accessible, and then to pull a bait-and-switch when they arrive?

Is it ethical for ads networks to spy on people, fingerprint their machines, and create dossers about them?

▲

cryptonector 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Is it ethical to advertise something that users (or indexers) expect to be freely accessible, and then [...]

So if you expect something to be free therefore it must be?

▲

zameermfm 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

True, several sides, 1. It's not bait and switch, you have a preview of the text and if you like continue, its upto platforms which publishes the link to mark it as paid or free - or by crowdsourcing. 2. Just because a model isn't perfect that doesn't justify a illegal or unethical action. If you don't like it, don't consume.

I agree with you on advertisements, I don't like an ad ridden internet either, but I have come around to thinking, the alternative and the incentive to ad free internet is an easier payment access

	▲	Terr_ 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My concern is less the page itself showing blurb-with-divider, but what happened a second before when someone clicked the link. Is there a standard way that these sites are up-front about "Most people won't be able to see what I am choosing to reveal to you" which is communicated to search-engines, and the search-engines are at fault for the bait-and-switch?