>What about parental controls, schools and libraries filtering proxies, corporate firewall and proxies and all other kinds of filtering software ? what about se

>What about parental controls, schools and libraries filtering proxies, corporate firewall and proxies and all other kinds of filtering software ? what about services such as readability ? Is there a difference between using flashblock so flash ads will only load after being clicked and not having flash installed preventing flash based ads altogether ? Yes, there is an obvious and fundamental difference. Those are filtering and modifying the product, not the "cost". If you don't want to load explicit content, that is fine. If you want to change the formatting, so what? But what you are talking about is cutting out the cost. It is like eating at a restaurant, and "customizing" your experience so that you never receive the bill. >the question should not be whether ad blocking is ethical, but whether it is a moral obligation. The burden of proof falls squarely on advertising to justify its intrusions into users’ attentional spaces—not on users to justify exercising their freedom of attention. I'm sorry, what? You CHOSE to go to their website. If you don't want "intrusions" onto your "attentional space", then don't go to their website. They are the ones paying to provide the service. They are not "intruding", you are.