I'm not the one you should be complaining to. You should take it up with the advertisers who fling so much crap at me that I finally threw up my hands and said "Enough!" If you're advertising, then you're running with that crowd, and while I'm sorry if I took a sandwich out of your child's hand, I'm not going to watch rotten teeth, fungal toes (as mentioned elsewhere here) and have myself tracked any more than I personally care to. It's all a continuum.
I don't think there's an RFC that describes how advertisements are supposed to work on the Internet or the Web. These are just something that people have piled on top, and they hope they make money. But there's no right to making money in any particular way.
I'm pretty sure that most of the sites I look at don't have ads on them. Unfortunately, I have to block all ads by default, because the few have ruined it for me. If I visited your site regularly, and your site prompted me to unblock so you could make money, I would do it. Until or unless I found your ads performing some kind of objectionable behavior, and then I would re-block, and maybe not visit again.
I am quite happy to have my visit blocked entirely because of my ad blocking. You should try that, if you need to keep your kid in sandwiches.
I do pay for some content. For example, I pay for New York Times online access. I also block there, and they've never complained to me about it.
I don't feel entitled to anything at all, except to tailor my Internet experience within the bounds of technology and whatever is allowed by site managers.
People using ad blockers doesn't actually bother me, I know it's a pointless argument. What bugs me are people sitting around concocting elaborate moral justifications. If you don't like my site, don't visit it. The end.
In any case, fortunately for you (and for everyone else!) content providers by and large have decided that, rather than spend their time and efforts doing whack-a-mole trying to "block" ad blockers from their sites (something you seem to think is much simpler than it is), that it's more in their interest to invest time and resources in developing more of that same content or functionality that drew people there in the first place.
I don't think there's an RFC that describes how advertisements are supposed to work on the Internet or the Web. These are just something that people have piled on top, and they hope they make money. But there's no right to making money in any particular way.
I'm pretty sure that most of the sites I look at don't have ads on them. Unfortunately, I have to block all ads by default, because the few have ruined it for me. If I visited your site regularly, and your site prompted me to unblock so you could make money, I would do it. Until or unless I found your ads performing some kind of objectionable behavior, and then I would re-block, and maybe not visit again.
I am quite happy to have my visit blocked entirely because of my ad blocking. You should try that, if you need to keep your kid in sandwiches.
I do pay for some content. For example, I pay for New York Times online access. I also block there, and they've never complained to me about it.
I don't feel entitled to anything at all, except to tailor my Internet experience within the bounds of technology and whatever is allowed by site managers.