> Why should you be allowed to use a service in a way they don't intend you to use it?

The Free Software movement has been fighting against this exact mentality for decades. Digital autonomy should be a basic human right. Anyone should be able to download and execute whatever code they want on their own computer.

Spotify also has this right, of course, and is free to block users if they choose. I am not morally obliged to support their business model. At the same time, I choose to have a paid Spotify account because it's more convenient.

That's the free software movement, not the free music movement Although the latter may actually be the more venerable body.

I'm talking about the Free Software movement. I have a moral right to use ad-blocking technology, or any other software on my own computer.

Spotify can refuse me service if they have a problem with this (no free music), but they can't make me feel guilty for blocking ads.

If you're running the Spotify client, you're using their computer, too, not just your own. You have the right to kick them off of your PC or phone, and they have the right to kick you off of their server. What's the problem with that?

No problem at all. Spotify has every right to do this.

The original comment seems to argue that ad-blockers are morally wrong, which I disagree with. Ad-blockers are a morally neutral technology, even if they hurt some company's bottom line. Companies that dislike this reality can deploy technical countermeasures, like Spotify is doing.

Why? Because it is within my full legal right to do so.

If you don't like it, then go change the law.