Yes, I believe ad-blocking (assuming it works) is equivalent to piracy. In both cases, you are consuming someone's work (a song, a movie, an article) without compensating them in any way, enabled by technology, and without attempting to obtain the approval of the content provider.
Here's the bottom line: You have no obligation to view ads. You can distinguish between OK ads and not-OK ads in your head. Whatever. But if you refuse to accept a site's ad policy, here is your only ethical remedy: DON'T VISIT THE SITE. Reading the article entirely ad-free is no different than going to a restaurant and not paying the bill, or sneaking into a concert without buying a ticket, or watching a movie you downloaded for free via torrent. You are consuming someone's work, without any remuneration or compensation.
Attention is a valuable resource and not one I'm going to give freely to ads that try to STEAL it from me. Computer performance and bandwidth savings are also valuable to me. My ISP gives me a cap. Expecting me to download tens of MB of data for KB of content is a no-go. Blocking ads and scripts can also be extremely beneficial for those that need accessibility.
If you want compensation, require it, put up a paywall. If your site dies because that business model is not sustainable, good riddance. It's time the ad model dies and dies permanently without a tear shed for its demise.
Why is GP under any ethical obligation to consume ads? Were you shaming people in the 90s who muted their TVs when commercials came on? Why is it GP's responsibility to make someone's business model work?
Why are you conflating movie piracy with ad blocking? It's completely different, from a legal and ethical standpoint. And GP didn't even mention piracy.
Yes, journalism is in trouble. Yes, it's an important industry that fills an invaluable role in society. But print media has been beholden to advertising so long, that it doesn't even know how to sell its product anymore. And that's not GP's fault.