Interestingly you accuse the other side of being unreasonable when you are the one confusing reason and ideology. Good ads are not bothersome or harming you in a significant way. I prefer to see some ads rather than see sites that i benefit from go bankrupt.
Id prefer a tiny payment option - €5- 10 a year would give any news publisher more gain from having me as a user than bombarding me with ads (just the same way it works for Wikipedia) - but that option in most cases doesn't seem to exist. Or the flattr option to directly reward qualitative reporting and recreate good incentives (quality over clickbait).
> Interestingly you accuse the other side of being unreasonable when you are the one confusing reason and ideology.
Nope, I said zero things about ideology. All I said was this: an AdBlock program is a program that block ads. That's what is reasonable to expect: that it does what it says in the tin. If an AdBlock program starts charging money to allow certain ads to go through, then it is betraying its users.
Some people want a program that filters ads according to some criteria of quality? Sure, I don't care. But it's not an ad blocker anymore, it's an ad filter. Right?
The only ideology in this discussion is coming from people who argue that the public has some obligation to accept ads or tracking in exchange for free content. I made no moral judgements, I just have a strong personal preference against ads and tracking, a lot of other people in my "box" or whatever the fuck it is do too, and this is why ad blockers became popular.
And let's be honest: people who claim to like to be exposed to "high-quality ads" typically have some vested interest in the ad business.
Sure, people have all sorts of weird fetishes.