If advertisers thought about long-term, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Thinking short-term is actually a staple of business. And so advertisers have for ages been burning trust to boost sales metric, and now they are surprised people are rebelling when they finally have means to do so?

The problem with advertising, on-line and off-line, is that it's user-hostile. It's manipulative and abusive even before you add trackers and malware on top of that. Maybe there was a time when advertising existed to inform people about available choices. I don't know when that age was, but it's not what's the focus of advertising nowadays. If you're acting hostile to me and my friends, I have a right to defend myself, and to instruct my friends on how they can defend themselves.

..and as a business owner, I also have a right to defend myself.. which most likely means more and more power to people with money.

See what happens when we have these pissing matches? Everybody loses.

It's even worse for the average user because businesses have the resources to either destroy you in lawsuits or change tactics.

It worked real well for the independent artist in the 90s that could actually earn a living.

Now they are forced to go to one of the major labels or apple/spotify, which are much worse in terms of compensation.

Wasn’t the whole movement aimed at helping these sad artists that were being screwed over?

I called bullshit on this 15 years ago and predicted what has happened today.

If there wasn't a culture of rampant entitlement for free things, we would have a better landscape today.

But, I can only warn the community so much.

So what are we, as customers, supposed to do? Lie down and give up? Businesses have strong incentives to get as much money from people as they can get away with. In a competitive economy there's no leaving money on the table - if you don't pick it up, your competitor will. The only limits are those we impose ourselves - whether through laws or through just saying "screw this" and installing an ad blocker.

> Wasn’t the whole movement aimed at helping these sad artists that were being screwed over?

And who screwed this up? Not piracy, really, but labels. That and clinging to business models that don't make sense in a digital economy. The reality is not obliged to cooperate with whatever money-making idea you like - you have to find a one that works. In the digital world, content is cheap and copying is free; everyone needs to learn to deal with it. But alas, companies are more willing to destroy the Internet itself than change their practices. That's why people retaliate.

Frankly, the Internet is more important than some artists not getting properly compensated because of it (even if it's really all because piracy), and it's better to lose them than to have everything DRMed up.

The businesses started this war, and now they're complaining people are defending themselves and it gets harder to take their money? Cry me a river.

I use it, but I wouldn't want it to be the default option. I prefer other people to watch ads. To a willing person, injury is not done. If they can't be bothered to install an adblocker, so be it.