> Wouldn't it be more ethical to not visit ad supported websites in the first place? Instead of removing the source of their income while still consuming their

> Wouldn't it be more ethical to not visit ad supported websites in the first place? Instead of removing the source of their income while still consuming their content? That's fundamentally not how the web works. If you want me to pay for content, you need to get me to agree to pay for content. Just requesting a page, which I have no way beforehand of knowing contains ads, is not me agreeing to pay for the content. If you didn't want me to view the content without paying for it, why did you send me the content? This is morally equivalent to the fake monk scam[1] in NYC where a fake Buddhist monk gives you a prayer bracelet and then demands that you pay them for it. You don't get to give people things and then demand that they pay for it when that was never agreed upon. Even if the payment is with their attention. This is all setting aside the ethical blight that advertising, by its very nature, poses in the first place. Advertising is just lying--either literally, or by omission through presenting a one-sided view of products. There is never a case where advertising is ethical. Note that the NYT has mostly stopped serving up content to people who haven't agreed to pay for it, and they're doing quite well financially lately. [1] https://tricycle.org/article/monk-scam/ https://tricycle.org/article/monk-scam/