"If no one saw ads content would die, you want content to live, you should act in the way you want everyone to act, therefore watch ads."
It's usually straightforward and reliable moral reasoning.
But the implications of that approach have weird results here.
If we were really serious about improving how lucrative ads were, we wouldn't just have to watch them, we'd actually have to spend money on their products.
As far as the books are concerned, a lost purchase from a blocked ad counts the same as a lost purchase from a disinterested customer.
But it feels really weird to say people are morally obligated to buy something when they watch free content.
Maybe something's fishy with the categorical imperative here because marketers are specifically playing the odds. They're hoping to motivate behavior in just 1/10,000 viewers. Advertisers know it's a long shot and that people might defeat their efforts, using technology, heading to the kitchen during TV commercials, or just training themselves to recognize manipulation and sales pitches to harden themselves against sales. They'd be silly to take umbrage anytime fewer than 100% of eyeballs bought their product.
Or maybe the moral problem goes beyond ad blockers, and we're all destroying the web by being terrible consumers.
I don't actually know, but it's a weird moral problem, something feels not quite settled about the two typical responses on this topic...