Well, you are arguing a slippery slope fallacy here. I never suggested that sites shouldn't be able to make money. Speaking solely on behalf of myself as a sin

Well, you are arguing a slippery slope fallacy here. I never suggested that sites shouldn't be able to make money. Speaking solely on behalf of myself as a single participant in the market, a content publisher who expects me to view ads (or pay money) to view even a single piece of their general interest journalism is not a publisher I am interested in consuming content from. I view that as a fairly irrational business model, and a strongarm tactic, and when I see a publisher do that I am done with them -- Wired, Forbes, etc. are all replaceable for me, I can go read another site, or play a game, or walk the dog. You'd better believe I pay for lots of content and/or sit through ads when it's worth it to me. I just don't see why Wired's preference for a particular business model is more important than my preference for accessing the Internet through my machine on my connection with my time. I like an Internet where you get to choose the terms by which you access things. Now I can simply hit back if a link on HN goes to a site that forbids adblockers. We're not talking life and death here. I'm just saying it would be a nice feature to have. From a hacker's point of view I think it's remiss to say we shouldn't build technology which helps people consume the Internet the way they want because certain types of publishers need to make a buck.