I'm not thrilled about the Google ads in particular. I think that in the past, there have been relevant ads (United advertising on the MP forum) from legitimate companies. The problem is that the "context sensitive" ads promoted by Google seem to be, at best, questionable sorts of businesses. And that's the real problem.

I just spent a big chunk of my morning trying to track down some outfit that added a charge to my phone bill because someone in my household clicked an ad somewhere on the Internet and gave up a bunch of personal information while unknowingly subscribing to a "service" in order to get some freebies. These outfits that are in the Google ads, in particular, look to be similar in nature. While trying not to paint with a broad brush, i'm not seeing brand names that I'm familiar with and frankly, "Legally emailing millions" feels a whole lot like a spammer's paradise.

Is this what we want FT to become?

I respect RP's right to make a living. FT is an incredible resource, and, at some point, it moved from being a hobby to being a business for RP. But I really hope that FT doesn't die because it is overwhelmed by 1) idiots looking to score a quick buck or promote a point of view; or 2) intrusive ads (that no one wants to click on anyway) that force the quality contributors away.

While I'm certain that the "HOSTS" fix will eliminate the problem for now, I also expect that the ad providers will start to function like spammers and continually change tactics (and domains) in order to get those ads posted. And frankly, that's when you know the ads aren't legit. If people tolerated the ads, they wouldn't block them (it's like getting email advertising from CompUSA or Buy.com -- you tolerate the mass emails because they are legitimate companies providing a legitimate service).

I can't believe that the revenue stream from these ads is worth the hassle (or is sustainable with little or no click throughs). If it is, I'll need to re-think what I do for a living...