While I agree with you, thats probably the reason for a small percentage of adblocker installs.

I dunno, I mean I wouldn't be surprised if you are right, but I also think the definition of "acceptable" advertising tends towards the "no advertising at all" side of the spectrum.

Like I just said, browser ad blockers have been around for well over a decade, but their installed base has been a pretty small proportion of users until the past few years. A lot of people don't seem to be hugely bothered by a certain level of advertising, at least not enough to go to the effort of installing an adblocker.

Personally, I'd much rather have no advertising at all, but until recently I tried to only block problematic sites, use ABP's Acceptable Ads, and so forth, because I want to support the sites I use regularly even at the cost of very minor irritation. I switched to a scorched-earth policy when it got so bad that many sites were suffering major performance degradation, and many others were plastered with bottom-feeding ads that were actively offensive to me. If things actually improve by some miracle, I'd consider throttling it back a bit.

"Like I just said"... This comment I made wasn't for you.

It was three comments above yours.

I'm not talking about you. Or me, for that matter. I'm talking about the mass of people whose ad impressions pay for pretty much the entire internet right now. Like it or not, the kind of ads they will and won't put up with have a large impact on the sites you and I use every day.

You're implying the internet wouldn't exist without advertising, with is laughably false and exactly what the people with loud, shitty, privacy-invading ads want you to think.

Most of the sites that most people use are ad-supported to some extent. For better or worse, remove the ads and those sites go away. If you don't believe that's true, please provide a counterargument.