I already agreed with another commenter that I should&#x27;ve exempted the first click. The rest of your arguments seems to go like this.<p>1. You know that most of the web&#x27;s content is paid for with ads.<p>2. You&#x27;ve installed an ad-blocker to prevent them from loading.<p>3. You didn&#x27;t see them when you do so it doesn&#x27;t count.<p>That&#x27;s a funny argument, right there. You could just as easily cover your eyes as you&#x27;re driving through traffic and make the same argument. However, you knew what would be ahead of you, the significance, and made the decision anyway for selfish reasons. Fine if you do as I run an adblocker, too.<p>Strange that so many pretend like they aren&#x27;t ripping off sites giving them content or a huge uptake of this wouldn&#x27;t damage those same sites. Why do you keep pretending?<p>&quot;In fact, my browser is muted by default, and I always mute TV commercials (used to have a mythtv plugin for it, even). Are you now going to accuse me of stealing for protecting the silence of my own home?&quot;<p>Did you blank the content that the ads paid for, as well? Or just your end of the arrangement? I&#x27;m accusing you of talking content while blocking what pays of it. If it&#x27;s not stealing, it&#x27;s something very similar.<p>Many ads are visual or textual, though, so I&#x27;m not sure why you&#x27;re bringing up the silence of your home as a counter to all ads except as a reframing of the discussion to make your ad-avoidance seem more sensible. Realistically, you don&#x27;t care if they loose money and go out of business so long as you get the content with little to nothing in return. That&#x27;s your actual position.