[mbrownnyc]

Yes. I've just immediately not gone to a site that didn't load content because I was using an ad blocker. Your content has to be very worth it for me to disable my ad blocker.

[Zarel]

It's unclear why the website would care, since you're clearly not a revenue source for them.

[monk_e_boy]

Equally the user can't determine whether the site is of any value to them if they leave as soon as they see an advert. Some sites I go to are stores, who are trying to sell me stuff who also have auto playing adverts. Crazy but true.

[nicolewhite]

I like what OkCupid does. If you have an ad blocker enabled, they explain in the space where an ad would normally be that while OkCupid is free, it runs on ad revenue, with a link to their donation page.

[joepie91_]

If ads are the entirety of your revenue, then you're probably not running a healthy business to begin with.

[macns]

a hit has value no matter what they choose to see.

[johnward]

That seems ok to. If a site is solely using ads for revenue and you choose not to see the ads then the site should be able to choose not to show you anything.

The site will probably die eventually but it seems like that is fair. What doesn't seem fair to me is leaching add supported content.

[davidgerard]

If a site's deal is "my content is worth you risking malware", that would suggest it's pretty darn awesome content.

[kuschku]

time.com has that issue, and I just ended up writing a small userstyle to fix it.

[Animats]

Time.com is so broken. They disable scroll, but their pages are longer than the screen height.

It's so silly. Their pages are static.