Blocking ads does in fact have value, in and of itself. Certainly it has value to me because I prefer an uncluttered web experience free from flashing pixels. It has value to ISPs in terms of reduced bandwidth usage, which can have very significant costs (they are PAYING for the ad bits to be sent to my computer, which translates to increased cost for me). The value to an advertiser for showing me an ad is exactly zero. I will not click. I will not by a Coke or Ford. Advertisers want to know that the money they are spending is going to actually help their brand. By allowing ad impressions to be served to me, I am diluting the value of the ad campaign for the advertiser. By blocking ads, I am in fact increasing the value of every other ad impression served. If all non-clicking people installed ad blocking extensions, and no impressions were wasted on people who will never convert, the value of the ads served will increase significantly. High-value, constrained inventory will drive a competitive marketplace. Advertisers will fight, and pay a premium, for targeted advertising which drives a conversion. That premium, assuming your content attracts the right demographic group, will directly translate into increased revenue for your site. Honestly, you should encourage every non-clicker to install AdBlock. Otherwise, they are hurting both the advertiser's and your bottom lines. Added value for everyone involved.

And yes, ABC might very well be an explicit condemnation of XYZ. And maybe I just don't want what XYZ has to offer. Would I chose to block gasoline (i.e. drive an electric car) explicitly to condemn the oil industry? Maybe. Would I chose to block pop music (i.e. not buy CDs) explicitly to condemn the RIAA? It's all crap I don't want anyway, so no. In either case, someone else makes less money because of my choice. Please explain why should I be forced to consume something which I do not want, simply because it is how someone else makes a little money?

And maybe there is no living to be made by producing professional content on the web under an ad supported model. Insisting that such a model is viable does not make it so. Many Internet sites make large amounts of revenue selling professional content without relying on advertising income. And the consumers are more than willing to pay, even though so much of that content is free. Perhaps we could all takes some lessons from the porn industry.

So to translate, "If you do ABC, you'll destroy revenue model XYZ. I make money using XYZ, so you should stop doing ABC."

Just replace "ABC" with "download MP3s" and "XYZ" with "being the middle man" and you'll have a thread about the RIAA. Use "drive electric cars"/"selling oil" and you've got Exxon.

If someone's product (be it a blog post, a song, or a gallon of gas) is worth paying for, people will. If not, no one will care if it just disappears. Invoke the invisible hands of the free market or whatever, but really we all need to realize that no one is entitled to success simply because they try or something worked yesterday. When XYZ stops working, it's time to find a new business model. Adapt or die.

Regardless, the people who seek out AdBlock and other such tools are the same people that will never click on ads. I know, because I'm one of those people. And I happen to work in the advertising industry too. From my point of view, I'm doing everyone a service by blocking the ad calls. I'm not wasting an impression which would just hurt the click through rate of campaigns. And a crummy CTR will quickly drive the advertisers away.