In the case of an incorrectly configured browser, sure, but definitely not mine - which is the whole point. Once freely offered, conditions can't be imposed on use. If you don't want my browser to render content as it sees fit, don't serve the content over a protocol where that dynamic is inherent.
The reason very few actually take that route is because they want to have their cake and eat it too: the openness of www/http but the monetizability of AOL-esque pseudointernet schemes. If a publisher wants to fuck off to corponet with blackjack, hookers, DRM and WEI they're more than free to do so, but traffic may not follow them. Mine certainly won't.
I think the above comment is spot on, the level of hypocrisy here is quite off the charts. With "protocol" defense, would you view the content with adblock if the browser displayed a gate screen (that adblock didn't block - e.g. a separate page with a custom one-time link to content) saying "by viewing the content I created you consent to view ads. Yes / no" - yes serves HTTP 200 with no enforcement. You could argue "yes serves HTTP 200, protocol yada yada, they should have blocked it", but how, other than the amount of property lost, is it really different from e.g. someone jumping into your car when you step out for 10 seconds and driving away cause hey, you should have locked it?
I also use adblock, but I'm honest with myself - ads suck, and I'm a dick who doesn't care about most content creators. If they ask for money (e.g. on Substack), I pay them or stop reading them. If they use ads I block them cause I don't care. Kinda like speeding on a highway - probably not a right thing to do, oh well if they catch me I'll pay a fine... no need to invent some bogus defense about how speed limits are wrong.
