I admit I didn't get through all of this but this struck me as complainey pants drivel. If a private website wants to accompany their product with an autoplay video of my mother in a sex show, they can. I would make the choice not to visit that site again and have a conversation with mom about appropriate side gigs in retirement.
What's more unethical is a person not taking advantage of the beautiful outdoors, family time, and other freedoms the western world provides. Instead they are captivated by a 100 word "article" spread across a stupid 10-slide slideshow analyzing kardashians ass over time.
+1
And I agree with the title of the article that it's okay to block ads, the same way it's okay for the providers to disable their website if adblockers are used. Sites with ads don't owe us anything, and we don't owe them anything. If they offer us a service (videos) for a price (seeing some ads), I get to decide whether or not the transaction is worth it. If they allow an adblocker on their site, that sweetens the deal for me!
As to them being "transparent," what does the author propose? They have a disclaimer stating they show ads, and ads can alter your perceptions? How many disclaimers have you ACTUALLY read lately? Would that change anyone you know's behavior on the internet? Probably not.
Given all this, the question should not be whether ad blocking is ethical, but whether it is a moral obligation. The burden of proof falls squarely on advertising to justify its intrusions into users’ attentional spaces—not on users to justify exercising their freedom of attention.
The proof is that internet advertising is not forcing anything on anyone. I think an argument against ads in necessary public locations or tax/house buying/car registration or other legally required materials would have more merit for the author. The only way I see users needing to justify their ad-blocking is if some agreement they have made forbids it. Otherwise they have nothing to justify.