When reading we’re free to skip and skim. Vinyl, VHS, Cassette, CD, and DVD allow us to seek or rewind as we like. When I buy a PC, I can install any software I choose to. When browsing the web, I can accept or reject any served content.

That’s not entitlement. Entitlement is the sentiment that users somehow owe advertising or web firms anything.

Not seeking to invalidate your point, but DVDs and Blurays can stop you from fast forwarding, most famously for the FBI anti-copying warning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_operation_prohibition

Thanks for the blast from the past. I haven't watched any non-pirated media for 10 years. It's a superior experience.

Wow, I never knew that. Reminds me of some recent moves to prevent skipping ads on streaming video.

Ever notice Candy Crush and Minecraft getting installed by Microsoft during Windows Updates?

I honestly used to browse the web without an adblocker and bounce from the site if it was too bad. About a year ago I ended up getting so fed up with not being able to visit pretty much any site that I installed one. I’m totally fine with being served ads, and recognize that it will even come with some not so friendly user tracking. Surely it must be possible to both serve me your content and ads at the same time. My only explanation is that it is pure laziness on all sides. The content maker gets paid if they display ads, the ad network gets paid if they fill ad slots, and the advertiser somehow sells more product (this I’m more skeptical of). So no one in that chain ever bothers to think of the end user.

I choose what runs on my machine.It is bizaarly entitled in fact to believe that viewing a website obligates me to run software of your choosing on my machine.

If operators want something from me they can ask for it. They can ask for money and I'll decide whether to provide it or they can demand I look at ads by refusing to work without ads.

If they want to connect to 37 different domains, ruin my battery life, unexpectedly play sound and video, or mine bitcoin the answer is probably no.

If the resource is valuable enough or If they simply want to load a singular resource that doesn't itself consume much compute or bandwidth I might consent to let them.

How many other industries rely on adversarial relationships with the people that ultimately keep their business running.

It is perfectly legal to use an ad blocker.

If these companies are unhappy with me using an ad blocker, then THEY are the entitled ones. They should change the law, if they don't like it.

I AM entitled to use an ad blocker, because that's what the law says.

As sb contributing to open source- yes, yes i do. Why - do you feel entitled for a universal income for adding another service layer, by wrapping something (usually open source) in some service (library usually open source)?

After seeing the same damn advertisement 100 times what is the point? It becomes tedious and pointless for me and the advertiser. So I block ads.

Do you not know how to read? Unusable means not usable, as in dysfunctionally slow. Literally can not use the web in many instances.