You're taking advantage of content that was paid for with the attention of people besides yourself. This is no different than grazing on a green you don't maintain.
If you're so opposed to ads, don't read content. Don't pretend that anybody is forcing you to visit ad supported content.
This directive would be just if it were possible for me to know, in advance of clicking on a given link, if the destination I'm clicking on embraces advertising revenue. Instead, I'm just supposed to Figure It Out, wasting bandwith and processing power for ads I don't want to see? Your business model sucks. Sorry.
If there were an ad blocker which blocked the entire page if ads were present, would you use it?
At the very least, you should know by now that most major websites depend on advertising revenue. So I assume you won't click on any of them. I also assume you never use Google or Facebook.
I add websites to my host file if they express desire for me to turn off my Adblocker. 99% of the time I can find a rehash of their content elsewhere. Since popular stories will get printed by 20 other publications with slight wording tweaks.
Google makes no such statement towards me. I don't use Facebook. Though that has nothing to do with my thoughts on ads more-so than my dislike of Facebook.
If nobody visits a site because nobody wants to see the ads and the site is in the red, they'll still be going out of business if they do not switch business models. Given I don't care if they go out of business sooner or later - they can enjoy their time of declining consumer base before eventually shuttering their doors because they refused to find a sustainable business model. I'll do them the courtesy of not bleeding them out more quickly. Much like how I do not abuse "no questions asked, money back guarantees".
I would absolutely use that ad blocker. In fact, I think umatrix or ublock origin could be configured to do so. It's a good idea, and I'll look into it.
I do not indeed ever use Google or Facebook. As I said, I do not approve of their business model, nor do I wish to participate in it.
I'm not responsible for putting food on their tables. Perhaps if their content is worth money, they can charge for it.
If they can't get people to pay for their content, maybe they should consider a line of work they can monetize without subjecting every single transaction to third-party skimming and engendering massive surveillance projects.
The problem with that approach is that you put everything behind a wall. Only the "rich" will have access to information. I wouldn't call that a free (as in freedom) and open web.
Do you really believe sites like stackoverflow should be locked behind a paywall? This will put poor people and especially children who don't have access to their parents credit at a massive disadvantage. I don't think you have realised it but I'm not talking about news sites that optimize their profits with click bait, this is about the entire internet.
Where is the magical solution that puts food on my table for the art I create?
I'm entitled to survive off the art I'm creating after all. Everyone should be paying me for making art. Regardless if it is of good or poor quality. I made it - thus people should be paying me!
Does that argument sound absurd to you? It should.
If people aren't willing to pay you for your art (or "journalism" as is often the case) then guess what? You aren't entitled to their money. Stop making art/journalism and find a better career. If people really value your journalism (or simply "journalism at all") they'll pay for it to be around.
If nobody is paying - nobody gives a shit. Content creators don't get some free pass to do as they want and expect to get paid for it. If they aren't producing work worth paying for - guess what? That's their problem not anyone else's problem.
E:
Figurative third person use of "your" and "you", for clarification of the usage.
