Not unethical in the least.

I don't play many phone games but DNS66 has completely removed every ad from my phone with no hassle (no root required), assuming it reliably works on games it sound simpler than having to approve individual requests.

It is absolutely unethical. If you don’t want ads, don’t install a game with ads. No one is requiring you to play the specific games that have ads. Choose from the many games that don’t have ads.

If you don't want people to play your game without submitting themselves to malware and psychological manipulation, block them.

I'd agree that it is unethical to avoid things that try and stop the game from working while you run an adblocker. I signed no contract and there is no social contract that says I have to look at the ads or let all your network requests go through. To create that social contract developers need to communicate it clearly (the easiest way being to attempt to block people using adblockers from playing the game). It's not like the existence of adblockers is a secret or something.

I disagree. There is nothing unethical about maintaining and enforcing control over what happens on my machines.

There's nothing ethical about the way advertising invades every part of society, every corner of your home, and every available minute of human attention. Blocking ads is eminently moral, because the only way to stop their encroach is to punish their purchase by blocking them.

The advertising industry is a massive moral failure, right under annually throwing 8 billion baby chickens into a blender seconds after they're born so that our meals taste marginally better. It turns out you can commit all kinds of atrocities on a mass scale, and nobody cares so long as it's socially normalized. In another time we're gassing Jews.

So it is unethical to kill chickens right after their born but no other time?

This is not a valid inference.

Wouldn't it be simpler, more ethical, and send a stronger message to simply not play the game?

Why would this be more ethical? If I own a network connected device, I am perfectly within ethical grounds to case-by-case block any kind of web request it might make. Whatever web requests happen on my device has absolutely no connection to someone who decided of their own accord to make a game or a music channel or whatever freely available to download / stream / etc.

They may prefer that those web requests succeed and generate ad revenue, but that’s literally just a mere hope that the user will choose to allow that to happen.

Another example could be creating a little robot that floats above my shoulder and uses a computer vision system to place some construction paper in my field of vision dynamically to block the photons of light coming from ad pixels from reaching my eyeball.

I’ll just miniaturize that idea and place it into my phone either as a browser/app ad blocking program, or a root level web request blocker, etc.

It depends if you think an action that both you and the content producer agree is ethical is relatively more ethical than one that you think is ethical, but the content producer thinks is unethical.

If I was doing business with one of my friends, I'd strive to use their services in ways we agreed were fair, not just ways I thought were fair and they disagreed. My friends are reasonable and honest people, so if we disagreed I could be wrong as easily as they could.

Of course, the ad industry isn't much of an ethical beacon and an industry isn't capable of being anyone's friend, so I run an ad blocker. But the angle other people are coming from is pretty easy to understand.

> “but the content producer thinks is unethical.”

What? Of what relevance is the random thought of the content producer when it comes to my personal property.

That’s like saying using my leaf blower to blow leaves is unethical because someone somewhere else in the world thinks I should use my leaf blower as a golf club.

Some person made a game or a streaming service or whatever. They hope people will allow ads to be displayed with it on the peoples’ personal property. But that creator person, who has no connection whatsoever to my personal property, does not influence any concept of ethics about the way I use my property.

No, on the contrary. By playing the game and blocking ads you're sending the correct message that you like the game but don't want the ads. If you didn't play the game you would be sending the incorrect message that the game isn't popular and the market would work with incorrect information. Indeed, as far as digital goods go, correct word-of-mouth is the most important aspect of market information. Meaning, if you like something but it comes laden with ads, you are not only ethical in taking it and blocking the ads, it would be immoral if you were not to do so. Similarly, if a digital good is only available with draconian DRM or at too high a price, it would be unethical NOT to pirate it.

It is simpler and more effective, but not more ethical.

> On Android devices, install the (free-and no ads) 'NoRoot Firewall'.

I installed it at some point, but then I wasn't sure how it was any different from the data usage settings in the app properties? There are options to disable Wi-Fi and data there too.

As per OP, using NRF you can fine-tune what is blocked and what is not. Say, for a game with an online component you would want to allow the game to access game servers, but not the advertisement servers.