But what you are reading isn't your content - it was generated by someone else.

Ever walked through a tourist district and seen someone handing out freebies of some sort - palm readings, or flowers, or what have you?

Once in a while an inadequately wary tourist accepts the freebie, and then they’re accosted angrily for payment/gratuity.

I understand it’s not a perfect analogy, but the bottom line is largely the same: if you give your content away for free, you want payment, you aren’t owed payment. Giving stuff away for free and then crying about the payment you’re owed is a bait and switch.

That's similar to an outdoor concert venue trying to charge nearby residents for each show.

If websites don't like that users have the ability to block ads, then a new ad delivery mechanism is needed, or possibly a different revenue model. For example many youtubers now have sponsored sections directly in their video. The only way to avoid it is to fast forward through it.

People have every right to control their computer, their network, and what happens to data once it has arrived. Depending on something as squishy as ethics for your revenue is pretty risky.

But I'm not forcing them to share it with me.. They can request me to pay for it, I just won't unless it's something I really need.

1) I pay for free sites/services I routinely use (wikipedia, FSF)

2) They put content up for free on their sites. I put a regulator on the instructions my CPU runs. They're free to detect the ad blocker and block access.

3) copyright is BS.

And if you use your awesome painting skills to paint your house with some nice murals, will you charge me 5$ every time I pass by because I looked at something that was generated by you?

If you want people to pay for something, ask them upfront to pay or don't expose it to the public.

If you get a book, you aren't required to read it in any certain way.

When you openly put something on the world wide web, it no longer belongs just to you, it belongs to the world.

The owner posted that content in a publicly accessible location. If the content is so valuable that nobody should be able to access it without paying for it, we have ways of achieving that. Publish it as a book, put it behind a paywall, etc.

Then keep your mind off MY website! You are using YOUR mind and YOUR body and YOUR time and YOUR gun when you rob a bank too.

There's a lot wrong with this analogy. Right off the bat, a gun is not typically involved with legitimate banking. Fundamentally, when you rob a bank, you're coercing someone into giving you something that doesn't belong to you. When you block ads, you're taking something that was offered freely, then choosing which parts of it you want.

I was illustrating how bad his point is with the "it's my BLANK" argument. Just because you are using something that belongs to you doesn't mean it doesn't affect other people.

I don’t think you fully understood his point.

When a website comes to your computer, and you choose to digest it in the manner you see fit, our using YOUR resources the way YOU see fit.

The content creator wants you to use your resources the way THEY see fit. They ... can’t really demand that.

As opposed to charging a subscription fee, in which you are aligned in wanting to use your resources in a way you both find satisfying.

When the mailman comes onto MY property to deliver the mail he has other people's mail in his bag on MY walkway! I don't want that to happen because it's mine!!!!

Actually, if you place your mailbox on the perimeter of the property - as is quite common in some areas - the mailman won’t enter your property.

Huh. Turns out you do have control over your property, after all.

That is not supportive of the "it's mine therefore I'm right" argument it's just a solution to this particular problem. We can go on like this all day, but the argument is, just because it's yours does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. I am trying to show the error of the thinking with more erroneous thinking.

“You can’t force me to use my property the way you see fit” != “it’s mine so I can do anything I want with it.”

Put it behind a pay wall if you think it has so much economic value.

See my other comment. I don't care if people use adblock, I just hate the argument people some use to justify it. I believe there are good arguments, but not the "it's my browser" argument. It's self righteous to the extreme.

I don't understand what you are saying. Can I go to the bathroom during the commercial break while watching a football game? Do I have to scroll to the bottom of a page if I look at a headline?

No, of course I don't. If you demand a particular behavior from a reader, then enforce it. Otherwise, don't complain if it's ignored.

They can not look at the ads on the website, or go to the bathroom too. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the argument that it's "because it's mine".

When forbes infested its clients thanks to a third-party ad network that distributed malwares[1], i was smiling with shadenfreude. Maybe i'm self-righteous, but since 2005, blocking ads is for me a way to protect my computer.

[1]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbe...

If you want people off your website, why do you make it publicly available on the net? ;-)