[OfCounsel]

A webpage serves many elements, all to which you are entitled to see. Adblock is just a way to decide which elements you see or do not see. Your ethical position, that we are compelled to see everything served to us, is troublesome.

[toastercat]

When you visit a website or a YouTube video, there is an implied social contract that you will view the ads and allows trackers in exchange for consuming content. Otherwise, you are essentially freeloading off peoples' hard work. If you are not happy with the ads, simply go to another website that doesn't serve ads, host your own PeerTube instance or whatever. Just don't steal and then be entitled about it.

[ashildr]

Using adblockers is a safety measure. Since ads on websites today are known to spread malware and the ad industry has not been able or is not interested in fixing this I don‘t see any value in discussing your idea.

[toastercat]

What websites spread malware ads? Maybe you should... avoid going to those sites?

It's not the advertisement industry's job to fight malware or to protect you from it, it's their job to get products and services sold. That's called capitalism.

Also, if adblock is a safety measure, why then do these adguard filters and adblockers block ads/trackers on legitimate sites like Google and YouTube?

[dns_snek]

Even ads on "legitimate" sites like Google and Youtube regularly direct users towards scams and malware.

There are no "safe" places where an ad blocker can be disabled because these ads aren't strictly contextual. Any ad could run on any website.

> It's not the advertisement industry's job to fight malware or to protect you from it

In other contexts we would call this "aiding and abetting".