Blocking ads is ethical

Ethicalbeing in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession http://www.dictionary.com... The purpose of this debate is to ascertain whether or not ad blocking is ethical.If we were to accept ethics as what is always within rules or standards for right conduct or practice, than pro's points are wrong. Pro's argument relies upon the notion that ads usually present malware. -Pro must prove that malware is a frequent threat across all websites. -Pro must also explain how adblocking is within accordance to rulese or standards. When an individual accesses a website, than they are enjoying content that was created by them. Ads provide a source of revenue for these websites to continue to create new content. Pro claims that websites should be obligated to resolve this problem. -The problem with Pro's argument is that it generalizes all websites as sources of malware. It would be like claiming that every Muslim in America shows a general inclination towards radical beliefs, and we must disassociate ourselves from Muslims in order to avoid being killed in a explosion. Debate.org is an example of a website that presents ads that do nothing to harm the viewer. YouTube is an example of a website that presents ads that do no nothing to harm the viewer. PCMag.com is an example of a website that presents ads that do nothing to harm the viewer. Pro's mindset not only will deprive the great majority of good website of returning profit to the companies that give them money, but is simply unethical. -Adblocking is simply not right conduct. It bypasses the standard every website has for its visitors. No provider of content will be content with dismissal of the source that keeps that content afloat. -Adblocking hurts the good websites which is obviously unethical. Good websites are included in the majority of adblocking softwares. -Adblocking generalizes websites which is unethical in America. Generalizing any group of people is usually considered to be immoral, but also a blind decision to make. -Adblocking harms the survival of a website. As a result of adblocking, companies will see a low return in profits, and will simply cut off ties to the website creators that were being paid. The ethical solution is to download antivirus software, refuse to visit websites that contain malware ads, or sue websites that infect computers with malware. The three courses put forth are ethically permissible. They are within the set of laws and standards of society, and actually fix the problem. Antivirus software detects and extracts viruses on a computer. A loss of a significant portion of viewers of a website will compel the website to take immediate action in extracting any malware present. Suing the company that made the website will immediately compel a website to take action. The best part of the solution offered in this case is that,if put into action by a majority of internet users would, would solve the problem permanently. Adblocking is a solution that only is an individualistic and unethical way of solving the problem. It renders all websites as liable to malware content. It fails to compel websites to reduce the amount of possible malware content on their websites.