Every ad costs bandwidth, distracts you from the content you are after, costing you money, time and attention span.
Quite true. A slightly-less-tolerant blog post of mine on the topic of adblocking actually got linked from the AdBlock Plus
website a while ago on pretty much that topic.
Blocking them indiscriminately removes the nuisance together with the dangerous, so what?
But this is where I disagree.
There are websites where you can go to download TV adverts - and they're very popular. Why? Because some TV adverts are genuinely funny/entertaining enough that people *want* to see them, enough so that they'll hunt them down and download them in order to do so. (My favourite example being this one
And there are a few - just
a few - adverts that I either don't mind, or positively enjoy seeing. Google's adverts when I do a search are often relevant enough that I click on them because they're actually more useful than most of the search results pages.
The UserFriendly comic occasionally has advertising drives to get people to upgrade to Paid Subscription - and although I have such a sub, I don't use the ad-free version of the page: The adverts take the form of an alternative strip, which is replaced by the real one after 30 seconds. That's like getting two strips in one day - I *benefit* from UF advertising.
Any advert that's annoying, intrusive, deceptive, or in any way undesireable gets adblocked mercilessly and permanently. But blocking the few types of advert that are actually enjoyable, useful, or otherwise worth seeing? No, such adverts should be encouraged, not blocked indiscriminately. Advertising online isn't going to go away, believing otherwise is wishful thinking.
So doing what we can to make sure that the ads are helpful, entertaining, or in some way worth seeing, rather than annoying, intrusive, or distracting, can only be to our benefit. I'd rather advertisers were busy thinking up new ways to make my web experience better, than be busy thinking up new ways to bypass my popup blocker.