By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here.
That's a fair point, to some extent.
It's no different than pirating stuff
Off the top of my head...
Piracy is illegal, while not watching ads isn't.
In general, when something is sold for a price it's normal to pay so you can buy it, while when ads are displayed in other media there's no expectation that people must stop and look at them and the advertiser knew that up-front.
Consuming pirated content is a security risk if you do the "wrong" thing, while displaying on-line ads is a security risk if you do the "right" thing.
The content providers.
The advertisers.
Me.
I'm ad tolerant; I don't run ad-blockers. This means I get to see all ads. And some of them a really awful. I feel sorry for content creators having to have those on their sites. A 30 minute YouTube video with a 5 minute advert? Those yelling smileys or buzzing mosquitoes? (I politely emails the site owner; I nearly installed ad-block) The really slow loading page-covering ad delaying access to the actual content?
I fully understand why people block ads.
I don't understand why advertisers ever thought that "Annoy the hell out of anyone seeing this advert" was the best way to go.
You're doing the right thing by not installing adblock, but really you should vote with your feet, by just not visiting those sites. As soon as you see ads that annoy you - go away. That's the right thing to do, because then you're not consuming the content. You're always free to consume content or not, but if you do, you should adhere to the rules that the owner of that content set - namely that you also view this ad.
I could say that I actually do whitelist sites to display ads, but we both know that I'm in the minority there, and beside the point.
Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already.
However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly.
And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it.
Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.
Should I be ashamed of myself for occasionally using lynx too?
> if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist.
I'm not worried about that. I pay when given the opportunity for content on the web that I regularly enjoy.
> You're not participating in a fair transaction.
You seem to think that it's unfair that some people are able to negotiate a lower price than others.
You can rationalize it all you want but if everyone did what you propose we do, everything would be far more expensive.
People can and do detect my use of adblock and either ask me to disable it for their site, subscribe to their service, or decide not to serve me the data.
I have every write to request data from you while also instructing my browser not to request ads. You have every right to decide not to serve me any data. Until or unless I actually infringe your copyright, or enter into an agreement to see your ads and then renege, this is not equivalent to piracy.