[commmentator]

> you're accessing content paid for by adverts, but you aren't contributing to that payment.

If the content is paid for by adverts, then of course I am not contributing to that payment. Because I am not an advertising company, so by your own logic I didn't pay for the content. What's the problem?

[robertlagrant]

Online advertising works based on number of impressions/views/clicks. If you're blocking that mechanism then the site doesn't get paid.

[colejohnson66]

You are paying for it. Just not directly. You’re paying the advertiser with your attention, who then pays the website for the privilege to do so. Whether you think that’s OK or not is a different issue, but you are paying, even if you’re not the customer.

Just because you don’t directly pay for something doesn’t mean you don’t do so indirectly. For example, Facebook makes almost all their revenue from ads, but advertisers won’t pay them if users don’t visit. So by visiting Facebook (if you do), you’re keeping them afloat.

[JohnFen]

Which is exactly why I take great issue with calling ad-supported websites (or anything) "free". They're not free at all. They're very expensive.