[twreactistricky]

"While we believe adblocking is a consumer right we also believe that publishers whose content we access have the right to protect the Integrity and Delivery of their web content from any form of manipulation, change or censorship."

Lol, yes, you have a right to download malware, annoying video and audio and related junk on my system first in its entirety before I block it. This site also calls ad-blocking a 'racket'. Give me a break.

I have a simple policy. If you ask me to unblock ads nicely and clearly and explicitly state your ads have NO video, NO audio, NO pop ups or other crap then I unblock them. 99% of times I regret unblocking ads and block them again immediately because they are so terrible and in your face.

The advertising industry has no one to blame but themselves.

[jdzions]

I have to agree. Oriel's position is incredibly self-serving. It also asserts things that are not actually true:

"[... W]e also believe that publishers whose content we access have the right to protect the Integrity and Delivery of their web content from any form of manipulation, change or censorship."

Protection from the government manipulating, changing, or censoring - yes (at least in the US and some other jurisdictions). Protection from the user doing the changing? Um, nope. Didn't work that way with newspapers or magazines; doesn't work that way with the web.

[kup0]

Agreed. I have given them the benefit of the doubt. I have turned ad-blockers off on sites that requested it... only to turn it back on moments later because of the constant bombardment and sheer disregard for users and user experience.

Not to mention the rest of the issues (aesthetic destruction, readability issues, performance, security risks, privacy risks, etc)

As far as I'm concerned, any company/publisher/site that wants to use those types of ads can go out of business. I am fine with that consequence of ad-blocking.