No, we're discussing software a user chooses to run on their web client. You can request that they run your software, but you do not have a right to force them to run anything without a contract.

If you decided to rely on such an unreliable platform for an important business decision, that's your problem.

edit:

If you want to actually enforce a transaction where content is delivered only if the ads are included, that's what contracts are for. Use them. This was a solved problem several hundred years ago.

This idea that you get to make up contract-like requirements without actually negotiating and agreeing to them is nonsense.

but similarly you don't have the right to force them to serve you ad-free content.

If the offer is "this content, plus ads", and you don't want ads, your option is to say "I'll get the content somewhere else", or say "I'll get this content, but I don't want the ads". If they then say "no, sorry, we really mean it about the ads" why would you want to continue to get the content from them? They've shown that they don't care about you.

But that isn't really the current offer, is it? The offer is "here are end points to different pieces of content, and here's a suggestion how to combine them together".

The users may mix and match the content however they like as long as they don't redistribute it in a way that infringes copyright. It's kind of a mixtape of digital content for personal use: it's totally fine to interleave stuff from HN and Twitter, if I feel like that today. And while I'm at it, I just may skip the ads.