Not to leave a perfectly valid point to argue to a joke, here's my stance on ad blocking: You don't get to decide what content recipients will fetch. Content is

Not to leave a perfectly valid point to argue to a joke, here's my stance on ad blocking: You don't get to decide what content recipients will fetch. Content is commonly split into multiple separate requests for data which some users and clients won't even have the means to turn into useful information. The interactivity and selectivity in receiving said content is inherent to the protocol, and by all means what makes it different from other mass media. You can't deny users the ability to "receive" whatever part of the content you want unless you are willing to deliver it in another, more intrusive way. What you are really saying is that people are "just short of thieves" for not requesting content that an HTML document merely presents to them as an available resource. What's your stance on turning down the volume and preparing a sandwich during a TV commercial break? Would you be just short of a thief, or would you simply be doing what's reasonable when having the ability to opt out of information you are not interested in? Don't try and turn a flawed business model built on an infrastructure not meant to support it into a question of ethics. Also, as some pointed out, to the user, free can really be free. Ever maintained a personal website? How did (or would) your visitors pay for it? Everyone with an internet connection has the option to deliver free services and content at no additional cost.