What the other side gets wrong is treating every ad as an attack. Self-defense is proportional and targeted; an ad blocker is a blanket refusal. A reader isn't dodging malware, they're consuming a publisher's work while cutting off the payment that funds it. That's not defense, it's taking the product and skipping the bill. If ads are truly dangerous, the answer is regulation, subscriptions, or selective blocking, not a universal bypass. Calling it survival just rebrands freeloading as principle.

Your own example makes my case. If blocking wipes out a small developer's only revenue, that isn't defense, it's a transfer: you keep the content, they eat the cost. Self-defense is proportionate and aimed at an actual threat, but a blocker fires indiscriminately at every ad, spyware and harmless banner alike. In a two-sided market, ads are the price of admission. Refuse the price and you're not defending yourself, you're just not paying. Sure, the bad ads are real, but the fix is regulation, not a universal free pass.