Don't register just to comment. Join in and become a part of the community.
My Walmart analogy isn't flawed. How you get there doesn't matter. But you probably drove, which did cost money. Regardless, the money you pay for an internet subscription goes to ATT, Charter, Comcast, or any of the numerous other service providers. Not to the creator of the content you consume, or the providers of the services you use. Those are the people that the ads are providing a revenue stream for. You pay internet providers for the privilege of connecting to the internet. Which sites you consume is up to you. If you don't like a site that has a lot of ads, shop elsewhere, and don't consume that content. But if you consume that content, and block the stream of revenue that the content provider is looking for (his incentive for creating content, in many cases), then you're stealing from him. You're consuming his content without providing him the return that you owe him for it. That return is simply to have an ad on a page - you don't even have to look at it - it just has to be there.
So Daniel thinks it's hyperbole for me to use the word "stealing" - that's fine - he can think that - but really, if you're taking something without paying for it, it's stealing. Since payment is in the form of placement of an ad on a page, blocking that ad while you consume the content really is stealing. If not, then what's the difference between that and software piracy? Software doesn't cost anything to produce another copy of (assuming downloads), so who's it hurting, right? Wrong. If you're not going to pay for something that isn't offered free, then don't use it. When you're talking about services, it's even more true, since consuming a service often costs the service provider money, so that's not just "not giving money that wouldn't be there anyway" (a common argument for piracy), but it is actually taking money OUT of the pocket of the service provider.