I'm not arguing one way or the other as to the morality of these situations, but I don't think that they are analogous. Each of the following should be consider

I'm not arguing one way or the other as to the morality of these situations, but I don't think that they are analogous. Each of the following should be considered separately: 1. The transfer of money from the advertiser to the ad venue 2. The viewing of the ad by the consumer 3. The effectiveness of the ad campaign as perceived by the advertiser In the case of the bus, the most important consideration for the bus company, whether it was paid for the ad, is unaffected by whether or not you choose to look. Also, the advertiser knows beforehand that it is only paying for the probability that a passenger will sit near their ad. The fact that someone did not diligently view all the ads will not change their estimation of the ad campaign's value, since it is already factored in. In the case of online ad blocking, all three are affected to the maximum degree. You have no chance to view the ad, the effectiveness of the blocked ad is known by the advertiser to be zero and the site is not paid.