I use ad blockers because most web ads are intrusive and ugly. Yes, advertising serves a purpose by communicating products but some of its methods of dissemination aren't cool. I believe ads should be well-designed and reasonably published. Disgusting comes to mind when one visits some web pages or mobile apps; ugly ads take more estate than contents. I got tired of those annoying banners and YouTube pre-rolls. I installed ad blockers so I can delve into contents without intrusion. I use another one on my phone. I prefer to read blogs through Feed Readers to avoid embedded ads.
But guilt hit me when I saw this message from one of my frequent online joints - The Atlantic. The message pleads that I should consider disabling my ad blocker to support the site. I figured that it's one of the premium destinations online without paywalls. (Unlike those pesky sites - The Economist, New York Magazine, The New York Times etc., etc.).
I immediately unblocked ads for the site. And I'm going to do so for other sites I frequent. Not necessarily as an altruistic move but I feel it's about the most I can do to support the free and brilliant contents I have access to. Technology has made publishing easy, it has made creating web advertising easy too but it also created a means to avoid creepy ads. In this new age, with sophisticated ad blockers, it's going to be tough for publishers and advertisers when more people start installing ad blockers.