E.g., a McDonald's ad just wants to make you aware of a new thing on the menu.
I just want publishers that publish this kind of ad to be aware that this is evil. So I block the ads, and they get less money as a result. If the advertisers are allowed to exploit negative externalities, I should be too.
Also, it's not my position that you are obligated to click on ads. Trying to make it seem like I claimed that is uncharitable and I'd appreciate it if you stopped.
He used an analogy that involved theft to illustrate a moral point about the potential versus actual results of actions and the conclusions we can draw from them.
Apparently this was too subtle - and I'll admit I had to stop and think for a moment, so perhaps the analogy was confusing/unclear - but I'm fairly sure that the intent was the moral point, not comparing loss-of-revenue-via-non-shown-page-views directly to loss-of-revenue-due-to-theft-of-physical-product.
If they are making money based on views and you're using an ad blocker, then you're essentially taking away their revenue while giving yourself added convenience and/or less annoyance in the process. You're not directly taking the money (i.e. putting it in your own pocket), but you're transferring the value from one form to another, and it's going from them to you. If it's not the definition of stealing, it's pretty close.
>> "Except I haven't clicked on an ad in 9 years anyways."
This is the thing I find funny in these sorts of debates. Of course you've clicked on ads. You click on them every day. You just don't realize they're ads. Sure, they might not be big flashy image 468x60 banner ads, but you click on links every day. Some of those are paid. They're ads.
If you think you don't click on any paid advertising, you're extremely naive.
adblock = stealing
That's awesome. Wow. Alright, from now on I'm not going to install an adblock, you've convinced me.
...
Except I haven't clicked on an ad in 9 years anyways. Shit, I guess I'm just a perpetual thief.