[bllguo]

The only reason we have free online content to consume is because content creators expect to be reimbursed through ads. When I block ads I am free-riding off of people that don't. Whether this is stealing or not is semantics, and I don't care to get into that discussion. But I do see a moral problem here.

I personally do block most ads, which is kind of justifiable to me because of malware concerns, but I'm not going to pretend I'm doing nothing wrong. I try to pay for content when possible. I support non-advertising business models.

[ACow_Adonis]

There's just one little problem with your theory, which happens to be the factual accuracy.

Free online content was around before the ads were :\

Certain KINDS of online content will go away without advertising, but when you look at a great deal of that online content, I think there's at least a debatable moral argument to be made that the moral position is that it should be gotten rid of.

[shkkmo]

> Whether this is stealing or not is semantics, and I don't care to get into that discussion. But I do see a moral problem here.

It's not just semantics. Words matter. It's important semantics. Using an ad-blocker is neither stealing, nor free-riding (web-content is excludable and other consumer are not paying for it.)

This is much more akin to making use of a facility with a suggested donation and not making a donation. The morality here is fairly grey and heavily circumstantial. If you can easily afford the donation and the facility is the verge shutting down due to lack of funds, the the immorality seems fairly clear cut. If making a donation would preclude you from being able to use the facility or the facility is sufficiently funded, then few people would fault you from making use of it, especially if you make a point of picking up trash or making other efforts to improve the facility.

Online advertising not a clear cut case. Do we need to make sure our content creators get paid? Certainly. Does online advertising do a good job of rewarding skilled content creators? Sometimes. Does encouraging content creators to use advertising for reimbursement lead to access to better content? Doubtful.

I think you can easily offset any moral qualms you have about using an ad-blocker by funding direct donations, patreons, kickstarters or any of a number of other means of funding content creators and publishers directly.

Overall, I think paid advertising is an inherently immoral way of funding the content I consume. Why should I force the customers of companies I'm never going to buy anything from to pay for my entertainment?

[fl0wenol]

If a site I cared about was teetering on the edge in the internet stone age, they'd put up a Paypal donation button and you chip in.

Now, sites with value have either figured their strategy out or have something like Patreon, which I'm a big fan of. I'll donate to the Guardian if they flash that yellow banner, you know?

So no big loss for the other 99% of the web that feels slighted by ad-blockers and complains or shills for the ad network industry to save their bacon. If they fold, it's no loss.

[ionised]

Content creators seem to be expecting a lot, based on absolutely nothing.