The restaurant analogy works. Blocking web ads is not like ignoring a billboard, or turning away from TV ads. When you go to an ad-supported web site, your individual request actually costs money to serve. You are incrementally increasing their costs while denying them the corresponding income. You are making a decision to continue increasing those costs for your own benefit.
There's a reasonable argument to be made that the first request is a gimme. As soon as you see that there are ads being blocked, however, the moral thing to do would be to close the browser and go elsewhere.
Billboards and TV ads cost money too, generally speaking far more money per ad than web ads. The idea that they’re somehow different from website ads is wrong.
> As soon as you see that there are ads being blocked, however, the moral thing to do would be to close the browser and go elsewhere.
False, because that’s not the actual public expectation today. The common expectation that would define what is moral in this situation is that blocking is reasonable because ads are intrusive and annoying and often get in the way of the reason I’m on the site. I’d be fine with saying it’s “nice” and it’s “supporting” the site to not block the ad, but hard disagree that blocking is immoral, that’s just hyperbole.
That’s not really the advertiser’s wish either, they don’t want the result to be less traffic, they just want you to watch the ad. So your suggestion isn’t actually respecting their wishes.
There's a reasonable argument to be made that the first request is a gimme. As soon as you see that there are ads being blocked, however, the moral thing to do would be to close the browser and go elsewhere.