these two are not even close to the same thing. clicking a link is a very specific action "show me this stuff". Your analogy would be more apt if it involved going into a venue where music is performed.
The web equivalent is a paywall.
Now, bars put on free music. And you can go to them and not buy a drink regardless that the landlord puts on the music to get you to buy.
The landlord might get paid to have advertising up, like on a toilet vending machine. But me choosing not to look at it isn't morally wrong.
Arguably, even if I never buy a drink I can benefit the establishment socially.
The problem comes when the establishment not only needs pay the workers and buy the beer but also pay the breweries management and return dividend to share holders.
The web has moved to that stage where the capitalists have moved in - like large breweries owning pubs. Forums aren't run by the admins they're owned by media conglomerates, etc.. I'm really not sure it's made the web a better place.
Now, get off my lawn.
Is a fish obligated to swallow a hook that is cast into the ocean?? No reasonable fisherman would think this.
I'm not a personal fan of ads but when it comes to things I find important enough and have the option, I pay to remove them. The difference however is that the die-hards tend to not accept paying or viewing ads as acceptable. If they did, this wouldn't keep coming up.
Similarly, if I have no binding contract, it certainly can't be required of me to observe or respond to everything within the room. There is no origin for the musician's claimed right to oblige me to any commercial action.
She may perhaps claim that we entered into an implied contract. Or the musician could post a placard reading her terms-of-service. But in simply walking down the street, like clicking on a link, it can't reasonably be claimed that I entered into a preconceived and negotiated contract where I agreed to payment for a service.