Ad blocking is by definition attacking ads and all the companies and interests that revolve around that.
So ad blocking is and always will be "under attack", that was always expected, "small" players, like individual news sites for example have been fighting ad blocking for years, now big players are feeling the heat too and since ad blocking is an "existential threat" ( Meta just learned that ), they no longer ignore it or "kinda deal with it".
It always has been a war. And like every war, there are endless philosophical theories and discussions about the "sustainability" of the Web "without ads", the tracking, etc.
Even though some folks would like to make it illegal to crack phones, they can't. They are, however, allowed to release patches and updates that "crack the crack," so to speak. As long as these patches don't violate the law, then it's a simple, perfectly-legal arms race.
For myself, I don't run an adblocker. When I go to a site that's overrun with ads, I don't return. Hasn't happened too often. I also have Reader Mode, which works on most sites.
I refuse to project my own values onto others. I really don't care whether or not anyone else runs adblockers, as I don't profit from ads, and I don't run them, myself, for my own reasons, which no one really cares about.
So ad blocking is and always will be "under attack", that was always expected, "small" players, like individual news sites for example have been fighting ad blocking for years, now big players are feeling the heat too and since ad blocking is an "existential threat" ( Meta just learned that ), they no longer ignore it or "kinda deal with it".
It always has been a war. And like every war, there are endless philosophical theories and discussions about the "sustainability" of the Web "without ads", the tracking, etc.
But the reality is: It always has been a war.