Dunno, marco just seems like an entitled jerk who's constructed a maze of rationalization around ad blocking. If you don't like the ads a website shows, well,

Dunno, marco just seems like an entitled jerk who's constructed a maze of rationalization around ad blocking. If you don't like the ads a website shows, well, you should have found that out of the first visit. Great. Then don't visit again. Here's his rationalization: Publishers won’t solve this problem: they cannot consistently enforce standards of decency and security on the ad networks that they embed in their sites. Just as browsers added pop-up blockers to protect us from that abusive annoyance, new browser-level countermeasures are needed to protect us from today’s web abuses. And we shouldn’t feel guilty about this. The “implied contract” theory that we’ve agreed to view ads in exchange for free content is void because we can’t review the terms first — as soon as we follow a link, our browsers load, execute, transfer, and track everything embedded by the publisher. Our data, battery life, time, and privacy are taken by a blank check with no recourse. It’s like ordering from a restaurant menu with no prices, then being forced to pay whatever the restaurant demands at the end of the meal. [1] To use his dumb analogy, it's going to the same restaurant over and over and whining about the prices. If you don't like the prices, stop going. Continuing to visit while blocking ads is no different than downloading movies or apps for free because you can. It's fine when a handful of people do it; just like music sharing wasn't a huge problem until Napster. When every ios user starts totally blocking ads, it's not longer ignorable. There's no human right to read the nytimes. [1] http://www.marco.org/2015/09/16/peace-content-blocker http://www.marco.org/2015/09/16/peace-content-blocker