What terms? They send you a GET and you responded with 200 OK. What they do with the response once it reaches their property is up to them, you have no claim to how they view it.

The terms that are presented and (quasi-)enforced by the javascript returned with that 200 OK.

"This site is not supported on browsers that block ads. Please switch to a different browser or disable your adblocker to proceed"

Those are terms. You can choose to ignore or circumvent them but they're still terms.

FWIW I have no problem with sites doing this. You can participate in ad-blocking arms race if you so desire. I have no obligation to run your JavaScript just because you sent it to me. You can try to make it a requirement and I'll probably just use software to circumvent it.

But underlying point is that you have no moral or ethical claim to how people view your content, just as you have no moral or ethical claim that a person cannot rip ads out of a magazine. If you want them to pay for your content, the Open Internet is not the place you should be publishing.

They're not legally enforceable either. So, you can expect people to disable JS entirely on your site. :3

Of course, and I believe that the sum of actors exercising fair play in a generally free space will result in interesting market and social configurations.

In this case, I see internet content divided in half -- content for those who can pay for it, and content for those who can't. Not all websites should survive. Not all users should be able to experience everything on the internet. "You get what you pay for" is not wrong. Exclusivity can lead to quality.

Something new will appear, like pirated news aggregators. Maybe hosted in tor.

Sure, and I say let the games go on. I am eager to see what emerges.

My father doesn't even know what web browser is he using. He doesn't know how to install different one. He doesn't have permission do it anyway. You will ban him, he will stop coming there and start going to competitors. Who is lost is such situation?

Thing is, who loses in such a case?

Well played.

> terms

HTTP is not a contract.