> That is not how this world works, and trying to argue about it just makes you look selfish. Ad blocking is a very common activity that is legal in every juri

> That is not how this world works, and trying to argue about it just makes you look selfish. Ad blocking is a very common activity that is legal in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of. Since ad blocking is legal and many users consider ads an unnecessary distraction, a time waster, or a privacy-invading scourge, users have strong incentives to block ads. No publisher is obligated to release content with ads, and nobody is entitled to have a sustainable business that runs on ads. The notion that ads should be "something you can rely on" for profit is not consistent with the reality of business, because there is no business model that inherently deserves to be successful. If a publisher wants to ensure that they receive payment for any content they create that is consumed, they can require that payment upfront with a paywall. Trying to characterize ad blocking as immoral because it benefits users over publishers isn't a winning strategy for publishers. Publishers need to create an actual incentive for users to fund their content, directly or indirectly, if they want to get paid. Since advertising is a monetization model that degrades the quality of the publisher's product and users can easily bypass ads with an ad blocker, more and more publishers are finding out over time that advertising isn't "something you can rely on" after all.