A few days ago, I posted "Unicorns aren't ad-supported" on HN.[1] There, I pointed out that, of a list of the top 50 "unicorns", non-public startups with > $1bn valuations, only three (Snapchat, Pintrest, and Vice) are ad-supported. This dot-com boom isn't driven by ads. It's driven by companies that provide a product or service for which their customers pay them. The companies that make their money from ads are from the previous dot-com boom.
Ad-blocking and tracker-blocking thus won't hurt the growth companies in Silicon Valley. YC could get behind ad-blocking without reducing the value of their portfolio. The concept that "the user is the product, not the customer" is now outdated. There are still companies which rely on it. They are vulnerable. Google still hasn't come up with a major revenue-generating product other than ads.
I agree that selling an actual product or service[1] the proper way to build a respectable and sustainable business.
As for making the user the product[2], advertising is merely the most obvious and publicly visible way stolen user data can be exploited for profit. For example, I doubt Experian is using the search information they get from webmd[3] for targeted advertising.
[1] an actual service; abusing copyright to bypass first sale and other forms of rent-seeking doesn't count
Ad-blocking and tracker-blocking thus won't hurt the growth companies in Silicon Valley. YC could get behind ad-blocking without reducing the value of their portfolio. The concept that "the user is the product, not the customer" is now outdated. There are still companies which rely on it. They are vulnerable. Google still hasn't come up with a major revenue-generating product other than ads.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372789