Maybe. To me it simply shows that removing ads is not a big enough benefit make people pay. Which makes sense because people are now used to ads. They will consume the content either way.

But we're talking about people who install a program that purposely defrauds advertisers.

There is no fraud, people running the websites have zero say in how I choose to browse the Internet, even if it means automating ad clicks as a means of protest. I could be doing the same manually, but why bother?

Im not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that the benefit you offer by removing ads as a feature is not big enough to get them to pay.

Yes, they do it on purpose. Have you researched why? Is this a symptom and not the problem itself?

:)

Well maybe. I think the implication there is 'I would pay a subscription to use this service if I had to, and would prefer that than an ad-supported service'. I don't think it's 'I would pay money for no reason rather than using an ad blocker'.