right, you're the only one who is correct in this thread, and the other responses are wrong - and yet my comment explaining this is downvoted. But look at all the noise that was generated in this thread! So, this is actually a fantastic illustration of why on some political or certain controversial issues, when HN groupthink is wrong (such as all the other responses in this thread) it's better not to point out the correct view.

You're both stuck on a nugget of truth - that it's obvious they don't want us blocking ads. Yes, it is.

But you haven't done anything to show an obligation, on my part, to view them. You've merely stated how you're so right about there being one.

What the sites are asking for is abusive - to use an open protocol for DRMed content. They're trying to have the benefits without the costs. Well, tough. If they want use DRM - let them use PDFs. Those contain mechanisms to prevent the manipulation of the content.

The web is an accessibility tool, not yet another marketing cesspool.

There is nothing honest about trying to run DRM over HTML. Serving adds are pissing in a public pool. It might be convent, but it makes things worse for everyone else.