If they're using a quality ad network (does such a thing exist?) where they honor the site's policy of no flash, no videos, and no auto-play advertisements then sure I'd turn the adblocker off. But that's the kicker for me since I've never seen an ad network that doesn't try to shove flash or scummy adverts in my face. I think the sites that depend on adverts for revenue are not a problem it's the ad networks which refuse to improve the quality of the ads. I swear that the quality of ads have not changed since the late 90s. If anything, I think they're gotten worse with time. When I buy a comic or a newspaper the adverts are fairly decent and they don't disrupt my content consumption. Whereas a website advert can often crash my browser or be part of some exploit/attack without the site or ad network owners knowing about it. So, I run with the adblocker on by default then I white list sites that I know are reputable. I just wish someone comes up with a better ad network to compete with the scummy tactics that are used right now by ad networks which would eliminate my need to use an adblocker altogether.

Yes. Unless the site owner agreed to accept all liability for malware potentially dropped by ads. They would need funds in escrow, and a claims mechanism.

Why not just stop going to the site?

That wasn't part of the question.

For many people it will depend on the nature and quantity of ads and trackers they have. Reddit has a similar thing where they thank you for not using ad blockers or perhaps gently encourage you not to -- and since they only have a few unobtrusive ads, many people do turn off their blockers.

That seems to me a red herring. The site requires you to agree to view their ads, or not access it. The nature of the ads is irrelevant-- if they are obtrusive enough to make the viewing experience unacceptable to you, your recourse is to stop viewing the site.

A site which is public cannot restrict access to its content as such. I think you don't understand the nature of public/private space in civil law. I can go to any grocery store during operating hours, zip through the aisles, then leave without buying a blessed thing. Mind you, if I did that in a manner that was obstructing actual customers from buying groceries or I was being a jerk in general they could ban me from the store. But prior to any interaction with the grocery store, its staff, and its customers, there is no legal obligation for me to not go into the store. You can't make a store that's open to the public magically private at the same time. Either it's open for business or it's closed to the public.

A website without the requirements of logging in to see its content is the same as an open to the public grocery store. All of its resources are legally free for access. It's up to the web site's administrators to decide to block access to abusive users and bots. But if a random user comes to the site with any sort of agreement text on the index page that agreement is not a contract as the user cannot be verified nor can consent be verified either (IP logs are generally not considered sufficient to identify a user in related case law). So, you as the website owner have to figure out how to display your content and how to make sure the adverts don't interfere in the operation of your public site. It's not a legal obligation of the user to see your adverts anymore than it is the legal obligation for you to make your site public. If you don't want adblocking users then make the site PRIVATE. Otherwise, you're open for business like the grocery store. And like the grocery store, you're on the hook for jerks like me who are looking but not buying.

If the content is that good and I somehow know this before visiting the site, I might put some effort into viewing the content, which might include sitting through their obnoxious, invasive, destructive, scummy advertising if necessary. Otherwise, I will have to settle for a selection from the other 3 petabytes of data coming into existence in the next 60 seconds. If the bandwidth saved by my non-visit is worth more than they could earn by developing a socially responsible business model, good for them, I guess.

> Would you still block ads on the site?

Yes. Even the "non-obtrusive" ones. My computer, my browser, choice; I'm under no obligation to interpret their content as they intended.

But aren't you entering into an implicit agreement with the site owners? Is it not wrong to intentionally violate an agreement you entered into willingly?

Lets take advertisement out of it, since people feel strongly about it.

What if the site asked you to donate one dollar to a particular charity? And if you are unwilling or unable, please simply stop using the site, thanks and have a nice day. Again, no enforcement-- honor system.

Would it be "right" to continue using the site but refuse to donate?

What if it was a cause you disagreed with?

What if the money went to the site owner, not a charity?

So long as their HTTP server responds to requests received from me, then it is "right" for me to perform whichever operations I choose with their response. Once data is on my machine, I get to decide how to process it, not them. If they don't want me to have their data, it is well within their rights not to provide it to me.

Why must the restriction be technical? This is the whole concept of an honor system. Why can't you use someone else's server under their (reasonable and clearly communicated) terms?

I could leave a bowl of candy on my desk with a sign that says "take one"-- there's nothing physically stopping you from taking the whole bowl, but that doesn't make it OK.

> Why can't you use someone else's server under their (reasonable and clearly communicated) terms?

Well, for one, clearly communicated to who, and when? Before I ever receive the first request, I cannot a priori know of any terms. Even afterwards, you're assuming that a person has read and comprehended the information, which is often not true. I suppose you'd say that's alright, but that when or if the terms are even comprehended, from that point forward they should be obeyed. I would still disagree, however. The crucial difference from your bowl of candy is that sending an HTTP request is a kind of speech act. Having those kind of terms on a web site fundamentally violates my right to apply whichever voltages across wires I own. A better analogy would be a company that sets up an automated mail-receiving machine that automatically sends a piece of candy--along with a printed ad, let's say--back to the originator. It wouldn't be right for such a company to demand that I open their reply in a certain way--for example, by requiring that I look at the ad that came along with the candy--because at that point, the candy and ad are mine, and if I wish to construct a candy-extracting machine that prevents me from seeing the ads, then that's my right.

And you would still visit their site?

So basically you're an ass.

What if a TV station were concerned about people looking away during commercials, and decided to air a message stating "If you are not comfortable watching our ads, all we ask is that you please do not tune to our channel." Would you think that someone who continued to close their eyes is an "ass"?