> Maybe because deep down you know that blocking ads is not justified?

Well we can debate the "morality" of ad blocking but not the justification :

- faster browsing (less javascript)

- safer browsing (it has been shown time and time again than ad networks were used to push malware ).

- saves phone/laptop battery since most ad-networks use/abuse javascript,

- better privacy (no tracking)

- more focus on the actual content, when there is one.

I personally disable javasript BY default because for me it's not the web. Is it immoral to do so ? I think not. I only enable it when it is justified ( a rich application like an online regex tool or a game ). If a website forces me to have javascript on just to read an article or block me then I don't feel bad about it. It is especially true on mobile where disabling javascript has a huge impact on battery life. Me saving some CPU cycles, some Mo on my data plan doesn't feel immoral at all. Maybe websites should think about it and the useless crap they send across the wire. Strangely today it doesn't seem to be a concern for most websites, the loading speed or the size of content. A responsive website is not enough to make it mobile friendly. I don't feel bad about punishing bad technical choices. Ads served on a different domain is also one of these bad choices.

You have those things and then you have robbing the publisher from his revenue and still wanting to consume his production. This problem precedes your problems. You presumed that the publisher will violate your privacy but decided that you want to profit from him anyway while blocking him from profiting from you. Is that an exchange in good faith? Or do you contemplate the morality of actions only when it suits you? Sounds like self-justification to me.

I'm not robbing anybody, how I am robbing somebody if content isn't behind a paywall at first place? so you might argue I might violate some TOS if I block ads, and it might be true. However this is not theft. The problem is you calling it theft. There is no theft here, I didn't rob the producer of the content he created. one can't even use the "piracy" argument like for musical or video content. The article is published online for free, and I can access it for free. If the publisher wants it paid, just let him put it behind a paywall. If he isn't doing that, well it is because he knows his content isn't worth people's money. No, the problem is between ad-networks and producers first and foremost. The problem isn't on my end.

It's unrealized gains. The problem most definitely lies with you. The producer proposes a something-for-something deal and you won't take anything other than something-for-nothing by presumption.

If he consumes your bandwidth, he is the devil. But when you consume his bandwidth without offering anything in return, it is justified?

> If he consumes your bandwidth, he is the devil. But when you consume his bandwidth without offering anything in return, it is justified?

That's the foundation of the web and with his javascript on a webpage the producer is certainly consuming unnecessary CPU cycles on my computer and I have the right not to allow that. The problem definitely doesn't lie with me. If he doesn't agree he has the right to block me no question. But as long as I can access the content legally I will never feel bad about that and there is nothing to feel bad about.

Stopping people sending me stuff that I do not want that costs me money to receive is easy to justify.

Don't visit their sites. Problem solved!

Except you don't know, before you go to it, whether any random site is going to hit you with 47-bazillion tracking cookies, load ads from 17 different ad networks, pulling down high-resolution images, malicious scripts, etc, etc.

It's gotten bad enough that I'm using my hosts file to block all this garbage, so requests to any of these sleazeball advertisers and trackers just 404. I'm amazed at how awful the internet is when I have to see all the sludge that advertising sprays all over it.