First of all, I find it silly to downvote a comment based on a disagreement, and I hope other HNers can use it for what it's for: off topic, spam, misleading an

First of all, I find it silly to downvote a comment based on a disagreement, and I hope other HNers can use it for what it's for: off topic, spam, misleading and nonsensical comments. That said, I do disagree with you. The fact of the matter is that most content on the web is monetized by ads. Applying your argument would effectively limit you to a very small fraction of the web. Content providers choose advertising as a business model because it's easy to integrate and, given enough traffic, pays well. If they would prioritize user experience and protecting their users' privacy, they would choose different, and perhaps less profitable and more difficult to integrate, revenue streams. Besides, ad blockers don't only serve the purpose of blocking advertising, but tracking scripts in general. Web analytics and user monitoring scripts that track the user to feed data brokers and the shady multi-billion dollar market that exists because of it, is particularly evil. Also, I'll choose how I want to consume the content that is provided on the open internet, control the bytes that I download and the programs that are allowed to run on _my machine_. If the content provider absolutely wants to get paid for their content, they're free to put up a paywall and block access altogether. If content providers have the freedom to choose how to monetize, then I have the freedom to choose how to consume.