[EpicDavi]

> "It infringes the freedom of the press."

How so? Just because an article is published by the press, does not mean I am obligated to view it. The users who install AdBlock are doing so on their free will, not being forced by governmental or other propaganda groups.

[danneu]

Seems like this is what they're referring to:

    > Their publishers had sought damages, but said their motivation
    > was to challenge the software provider's wider business model.
    > While AdBlock Plus offers its web browser add-on to the public
    > for free, it makes money by operating a "white list" of adverts that
    > it allows to get through its filters.

For example:

    > In February, the Financial Times reported that one unnamed 
    > media company had said it had been asked to pass on the
    > equivalent of 30% of the extra revenues it would have made
    > by having ads on its platform unblocked.

[fwn]

I think this view comes from the idea that "freedom of the press" can be understood as "publishers should never feel the economic pressure to change".

Besides reducing press to current publishers, this view is confusing a negative right (to publish anything) with a positive one (to make a living with ads).