I don't think distribution channel can be ad-free as such, let alone claiming every page on the internet needs to agree to this. Would be great if I can get access to superb resources without paying for them but that is not going to happen, hence ads. If you don't like ads (or block them), how come you are not a freeloader?
> If you don't like ads (or block them), how come you are not a freeloader?
They sent us the web page for free. It's their choice, they don't get to shame us for it.
They did that because they assumed we'd look at the ads. The chance that this assumption would turn out to be false was always there. There's just no way they didn't know about this risk.
What's happening is we don't want to look at this noise. We're not gonna do it. They need to accept that and move on instead of shaming us for invalidating the silly assumptions their business model is based on. Where does it say we're obligated to "give back" in exchange for their "free" content? That's just an idea they made up. They got it into their minds that we are "supposed" to pay them back by viewing ads when we are under exactly zero obligation to do so. They are not entitled to our attention.
