>>>http://adage.com/article/ken-wheaton/ad-blocking-parasite/300342/
>>
>>The guy is a compete clown who doesn't really think it through, either intentionally or because he can't. The truth is this: a website delivers content and is funded by the adverts it delivers. So far, so good. But if that website were to see if a user was using an ad-blocker and, if so, prevent access, present a message why, and offer access again but on condition of switching off the ad-blocker most users would decline and leave. What does that tell you? It tells you that the content is simply not worth the advertising. It's a business relationship but one where what they sell (content) is not worth the price (adverts). Quite frankly, most content is simply not worth it. The problem is not the adverts (only) but that the content is largely worthless or available elsewhere. There are very few sites I would subscribe to with my money or my attention.
>
>If I go to a site that is blocked as a result of my ad-blockers - I simply won't go to that site.
>One thing that I've noticed that a lot of the advertisers do now is on the website,... they make their ad's look exactly like part of the rest of the website.... so if you're on a news site, it can often be difficult to tell if you're looking at a news article, or an ad. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090626/1853095381.shtml If you ask them about it, what you usually hear is that they want to "leverage" the "stuff" that they've already created and "share technologies". What a crock...ha

If active content loads and runs by default, all sorts of stuff can happen e.g. http://blogs.cisco.com/security/talos/infinity-toolkit?f_l=sd