After all that is what you are doing with ublock.
You seem to think that the more something is repeated, the truer it gets. Nope. This was bullshit the first time someone argued it, it's bullshit now.
I am stealing nothing. This content is freely available to anyone with a browser. I am under no obligation to view anything that I do not want to; therefore I block as many ads as possible. My eyeballs, my rules. I can instruct my browser to not download anything I don't want to see, therefore I do. That is not stealing. That is choosing what content I want to see. You may as well say that by not clicking through an ad and buying something from the advertiser, I'm stealing from the site the ad is on. I am under no obligation to buy anything from the advertiser. Why am I therefore obligated to view the ad? I'm not going to buy anything from an obnoxious ad, so showing me an ad wastes my bandwidth and time, as well as the ad network's resources. Wouldn't it be better to not view the ad in the first place, if it's going to be completely ineffective? Essentially, I'm costing the advertising network money. Wouldn't it be better if that money weren't wasted?
If Slashdot wants to be ethical but raise money. Then they will get money from me on adblock.
If you keep feeding the stray dog, it will never leave you alone. Similarly, if you keep supporting the current advertising model (which is a complete sewer) there will be no incentive to change.
What is fair? Hosting Slashdot is certainly not free. Want to pay a subscription instead? I think adblock is perfect and ads a financial motivation for ad networks to be ethical and stop insane tracking and not infecting people with malware for ask toolbars and compromising the security of their systems.
Adblock would be great if they didn't sell you out all the time with their "acceptable ads" bullshit. No advertising is acceptable to me. I don't care how innocuous. At one time I put up with it for the reasons you suggest; no longer. The advertising industry, instead of recognizing the problem (their ads suck and are obnoxious), has decided to double down on the 'suck' instead of, I don't know, improving their product. But, what do you expect from people who drank their way through college and got a 2.01 GPA?
Come on. You can't have it both ways as all you are doing is encouraging HTML 5 ads that can't be blocked or worse HTML 6 mandated DRM ads that can't be turned off where websites on non win32 platforms won't load or something else website owners and ISP's will enforce next to maximize on money. Here is a hint. They do not care about you. Sorry.
And that's the problem. They consider it their birthright to shove marketing into my eyeballs like I'm Alex in A Clockwork Orange. If my choices are to have their shit shoved into my eyeballs or not visiting a page, I won't visit a page. Simple. By turning people off they're strangling themselves; if there are no sites for them to put ads on, they have no business. I'm just helping the process. It's the free market in action.
Think of it this way. The way we "pay" for sites right now is by viewing ads; you could consider the time and effort you waste seeing advertising as a "cost". What a lot of people don't realize is that companies do not price their products based on their costs to produce them; they charge as much as they can until they reach people's "balk" price. For example, if I will pay $5 for a widget, then they price that widget at $4.99. If they price that widget at, say, $6.99, I won't buy it. I balk at the price. The price of viewing content with obnoxious ads has become too high; it has passed people's "balk" price. The nice thing here is that the user can affect the price that they pay by not viewing advertising by using an ad blocker. It's a flaw in the system that people are taking advantage of. Fix the system (by making ads less fucking obnoxious) and people will stop balking.