[viggity]

I agree with her completely and didn't use adblock until ~6 months ago. But, the click bait "one weird trick" and "you'll never believe what XYZ did to ABC" horseshit ads made me crack. I just couldn't deal with seeing that nonsense anymore. I'd be happy to do micropayments, but at this point it looks unlikely to happen.

[okey]

You agree that when viewing a public site whose main revenue model is ads, you enter an implicit contract to view those ads? If so, why? If not, why do you agree that being selective about what HTTP reqs you make is morally equivalent to theft just because the site owner expects you not to be and hopes to gain money off that?

[Terr_]

Because they--content providers in general--continue to violate all sorts of implicit conditions of the "implicit contract".

The "implicit contract" says they shouldn't be attacking my computer with malware or attacking me with scams.

The "implicit contract" says the ads for a single page should not "take over" the rest of my computing-experience with stuff like auto-playing sound.

The "implicit contract" says one site's ads should not be part of a global panopticon secretly spying on my internet-wide activity through a thousand sources.

The "implicit contract" says the ads should not drastically change the page-loading time or cause the experience to stutter.

I believe at least 90% of all ad-blocking is attributable to these systematic violations of the users' trust.

[okey]

Ah, I wanted to know why viggity agreed with Lea, not for a list of reasons to use ad-block, but you make some good points... although I disagree about the presence of an implicit contract in the first place.