[mattchew]

I get where you're coming from. The free content is possible because of the advertisements, and you are sort of consenting to the ads when you choose to visit the site. It's not an explicit agreement but it is at least an understanding of what lets the wheels keep turning.

However, when ads are so obtrusive that they slow down my computer or ruin the use of the site completely, or if they have malware payloads (does happen) then I'm quite happy to use an ad blocker. I didn't use one until I started encountering this kind of nonsense regularly.

[paulryanrogers]

If we collectively boycotted the sites that allow such garbage then they would serve less obtrusive ads.

To consume the content without even considering ads makes it unethical.

[matheusmoreira]

Nothing at all unethical about it. We're not obligated to spend even one second looking at ads. They sent us free stuff hoping we were going to notice the ads they bundled alongside it. We're not obligated to do that though. It's that simple.

[paulryanrogers]

You're not ethical for consuming while also automatically bypassing even the possibility of an ad impression. It's the impression that pays for the content. No impressions. No content.

[matheusmoreira]

Guess the content just isn't gonna be paid for then. Not my responsibility to make their silly business model work. My attention belongs to me. I decide what I pay attention to. They aren't entitled to it. Sending me free stuff doesn't entitle them to literally anything.