This debate comes up every few years, and each time I feel conflicted.
On the one hand …
Stuff costs money. Online content costs money. Websites — including (or especially) major media / journalistic websites — get money from ads, sometimes for views, often for click-throughs. Block those ads, and the site doesn't get revenue. Turn off the revenue, eventually the site goes dark.
On the other hand …
Web page ads are obtrusive, obnoxious, distracting, and potentially dangerous. Having gotten used to not seeing them, having them pop up (sometimes literally) again is a horror show. Watching how they impact my Android experience tells me I don't want to go back to that on my desktop.
I could potentially subscribe to content — and in the cases of some specific creators, I do use Patreon to send a small amount monthly to them (in the "a dollar or two" range). That's only practical for so many locations, though. There are too many content sites out there to practically subscribe to. And too many subscription deals feel undermined by the publishers themselves, as they thrash around changing their models (pay wall! no pay wall! timed pay wall!).
What's the answer? I don't know. The current situation seems untenable, and increased nagging / bullying by sites seems unlikely to net a desirable result. We'll see what happens.
Websites know you’re using ad-blockers, and they’re coming for you
Some websites have resorted to appealing to their readers’ better nature or even haggling with them.
What I object to is the sites that have sponsered content and then have ads and object to ad-blockers with sarcastic comments about not getting paid.
I subscribe to the NYT online. I consider it to be fairly expensive but I'm willing to pay because I read it a lot. It really annoys me when they pop up ads. In my view, since I am paying a steep price to read their site, I shouldn't have to see obnoxious pop up ads. I'm also annoyed that on some pages, there is more space taken up by ads than by the article I'm reading. There are sites I have stopped visiting because the ads were too obtrusive. I think the rise in use of ad blockers is an indication that media has gone too far in pushing ads, and that consumers regard the media as having broken the implicit contract regarding advertising and media content.
I use an adblocker, but try to disable it on sites where a "small" provider uses ads as a source of income (usually web-comics).
What we need is a non-obtrusive micro-payment system.
I used to not mind ads but they've gotten aggressive lately, and some sites slam you with one after another, while others make it a challenge to find the stupid 'X' to close them because they get cute and hide it. They might find that visitors don't find ads quote so irritating if they tone them down a bit.
Also, I think this is just a sign of the things evolving. Lots of companies, websites, and blogs didn't realize what the future would hold; didn't think about the fact that money had to come from somewhere, so now they're trying to toss in ads and switch to subscription models. It wouldn't be bad except they've spent years basically training people to expect online content to be free, and now they're fussing when it's not.
I try not to use ad-blockers, but nowadays they are getting aggressive; I’m sick of pages taking ages to load because there is a video, which will also drown out actual audio content- and you find your self scrolling through 5 or 6 tabs trying to find what it is.
I believe a lot of site don’t control the ads; they sell the space, or it is a condition of the host, and the ad provider sells the space on.
There is a way to make good ads. My ad-blocker encourages those. When I go to a site and my ad-blocker picks up 20 or 25 ads, I know it's worth it.
And I do pay for content, if it's worth it. I paid for my ad-blocker.