[GhostCursor]

We don't agree with ads as a means for 'paying for your hosting and content'.

Charge people for your content and hosting, but this ad business doesn't work because of one reason: the user has control now.

Can't be as shady anymore.

[rebel]

Then don't visit those websites. If you haven't paid money to access the content, immediately turn away from websites that are free and ad supported. If you don't agree with it, why do you have the right to not only "steal" the content on the website, but also needlessly shut down their revenue source just because you not only want the data for free, but you actively want to harm this person supplying the data for free.

Edit: I can't reply further down. However, I included in my original statement that using adblock is an acceptable measure. Why do you actually have to shut down the publishers revenue stream and ultimately their website to show off your dislike for ads? If you want to go with your street musician example, the way I see it is that you are free to not pay him money, however to punch him in the face after listening to his music (and presumably enjoying it) is completely pointless.

[orbifold]

An imperfect analogy would be street musicians, they play in the hope that some people give them money for it. You are hosting content and each person accessing it is perfectly free to display only parts of it, you have no right to enforce that the content has to be viewed in a specific way. If I click on a link to a website, I have no way of knowing whether it would display ads or not. Since I have blocked ads for years, now I am not even aware of how awful some of the sites look with ads (piratebay / facebook come to mind).