[nwhitmore]

So, your viewpoint boils down to either I allow my content to be viewed solely on your terms or I go out of business.

Sounds like the type of negotiation the mob engages in. But, hey, as long as you get what you want, I guess it is ok.

[jwmerrill]

I edited my response because I realized it was inflammatory. But to be clear, my viewpoint is that the client/server and viewer/publisher relationship is a negotiation. The publisher should make content available under terms they find acceptable, and the user should be free to refuse to view things that they find unacceptable.

I don't think it's right that publishers seem to view me showing up at their front door as carte blanche to abuse my network and system resources to the full extent that JavaScript allows. And I think it's wrong to characterize user pushback as theft. Other kinds of "theft" are criminal behavior. Pick better terms.

[cantagi]

That's actually how all businesses work. If the terms of business aren't acceptable to your users, you lose the users and your business will fail.

Adverts are non-consensual hijacking of users resources, so you could argue that advertisers are committing theft. You're welcome to use a paywall on your site, or hide content from people using adblockers if you want to negotiate from your side.

[RUG3Y]

That's pretty much the sum of it. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that. It's how markets work. You provide something of value, and someone purchases it, or you provide something of no value, and the market refuses to buy it.