[BonesJustice]

In most cases, I don’t think it’s ads as concept that’s the problem. If websites only had static ads in the sidebar, I question how many people would bother with ad blockers.

But when ads block content; include flashing animations, audio, and video; and take up more layout space on a site than the actual content; then people have had enough.

[mikro2nd]

No, some of us block ads because we don't want to ever see any ads. Ever. At all.

[umanwizard]

Are you disagreeing with the person you replied to? Your tone suggests that you are, but the content of your post seems to being agreeing.

[BonesJustice]

I disagree that most people use ad blockers because they “don’t want to see [any] ads.”

Meaning, if advertisers hadn’t built more and more intrusive ads and had stuck with static ads that don’t severely harm the UX, then I doubt most users would bother with ad blockers.

[Gibbon1]

Yeah no one would care about magazine style ads with an ordinary click through link. Especially if clicking resulting something useful instead of being the browsing equivalent of jumping into a dumpster fire.

The advertiser arms race has resulted in a classic tragedy of the commons. That's my diagnosis of the problem. Traditionally regulation is needed to fix that. Exactly what that entails is beyond me.

[umanwizard]

I think you are misinterpreting the comment you're replying to. It's arguing that people block ads because they dislike seeing the ads they're seeing (as opposed to for privacy or resource usage concerns), not because they dislike all possible ads, which is what you're arguing against.