I think it's is a pretty compelling argument, but if we're being fair then the provider should have the right NOT to serve you data based on what you intend to do with it.
As an ad-blocker: I absolutely agree, however, there's no shortage of people offering me the same exact content elsewhere. Basically, supply and demand end up in the consumer's favor.
Likewise: "...essentially all of the ad supported sites I visit are diversions" - https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebD...
Technology is a tool, and the world is not fair. I'm not sending you intention HTTP headers over. I make a request, you send me a response, I do what I want with that response. So sorry that ruins your business model.
Monetizing via ads is proving to NOT WORK yet so many businesses are still banking on it. I don't fucking get it.
Wait, really? Users can't read their email if an adblocker is installed? I can't imagine what mother would do if she ran into a error message like that while trying to check her email (but she doesn't use yahoo).
I call false on this claim, but the sample size here is beyond insufficient to draw a wide conclusion.
Have they? Just went to their sites, no indications there.... is it just mobile?
This goes right to the heart of the issue so I felt it was worth highlighting: Who cares if they lock out their content? There are literally millions of news sources on the Internet, all (hilariously) copying each other's posts on what's trending in news, with often amusing (or horrifying) results when the stories are wrong. Oh, I can't read this story on Yahoo? Well I guess I'll just have to pick from the ten thousand freaking other copies of the same information available elsewhere.
We have TOO. MANY. NEWS. WEBSITES. The ad space isn't worth shit because the same ads are being pushed on millions of pages many times over, and the public is so desensitized to them at this point that the click rate is dropping like a safe.
If you work for one of these publishers, get a new job. Fast.