People listen to certain rock songs backwards thinking there is a satanic message hidden.
People watch movie trilogies in orders other than the one the filmmakers intended (Such as the Star Wars Machete Order).
People create mods for games that change the look and some times playing style.
When CSS first came about, modifying styles was outright encouraged.
Today there are numerous browser extensions that modify the experience of Reddit, Facebook, and other popular sites.
Hell, there are several businesses built on modifying Gmail for better workflows.
It's not advertising itself that I object to, it's distractingly annoying motion and sound, and it's third party content injection. Advertising can be great, but the current trend is for it to be flashy and obnoxious, and that's not OK.
Some of this argument doesn't hold up. Websites are not electrical signals that just enter your space". You're explicitly requesting access to them. And, they are not free to operate. Your requests to view them cost the producer some amount of money.
I'm not a fan of ads myself and think they are frequently outright abusive (even without malware). In fact, I pretty much detest the volume of advertising today.
But, I don't get this idea that we have a right* to consume web content hosted on a private entity's servers. There is a choice not to consume at all. Yes, companies like CNN shove so many ads in their vids that they are now more ads than content. So, I no longer watch vids on CNN.
I also think the analogy between ad blocking and grabbing a snack during TV ads is lacking. In the former case, there is a "set and forget" tech that guarantees that no ads will be seen...ever. In the latter case, one must actively avoid each advertisement, and do so with near perfect timing.
>...business model should take into account that a certain fraction of users are going to block [ads]
The reasoning here reminds me of that employed by people who believe music should be free. But, I can't figure out why people who presumably appreciate an artist, think that artist should work for nothing. The answer is that they don't actually believe that. Instead, it really boils down to "let someone else pay for it".
Not really. You can't spy on your neighbours or decrypt and watch pay satellite or cable tv.
The people who make this argument aren't inconsistent, they also likely believe that decrypting satellite, breaking DRM, or generally hacking or cracking shouldn't be illegal but dealt with through proper security or private contract.
(I do happen to be male, but I just noticed, and just wanted to make a suggestion for the future.)
(If you went through the trouble of looking up who I am via googling me or such, and then wrote the comment, then please ignore this and thank you for your attention to detail.)
Radar detectors are illegal in some places.
If you want to ask me to pay before those bytes will be sent to my private space, that's fine. You can recommend, but you cannot impose that I use a certain way to display your information. If I prefer using Lynx to view your website, I have the right to do that (and it won't show your ads because it's not even graphical). If I prefer using a modified version of Chromium, that's no different.
Ad blocking on a web browser is no different from muting the TV and grabbing a snack when the ads come on.
Yes, I understand advertising is a business model. That business model should take into account that a certain fraction of users are going to block them. If too many users start blocking ads, we can and will develop new business models to drive businesses. For example, perhaps a new form of advertising could be fun for the user, such that they wouldn't want to block them.