LTT's “AdBlockers are piracy” is a tone deaf remark
EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/selc4v/didnt_you_know_you_are_all_pirates_arrrrrrr/

EDIT: LTT = Linus Tech Tips.

This is all I have to say about adblockers and adverts:

1. Piracy is a willful act just as blocking JavaScript to protect one's self online is also a willful act, but it's not piracy because it's blocking adverts: that's just a side effect.

The ad gets blocked as most are served via JavaScript that I'm not authorising the run on my computer. My intention to was simply block arbitrary code from executing on *my * CPU - that's not piracy.

2. Code execution and 3rd party networks aren't something I'm authorising you to execute or connect to.

It's as simple as that. Those are the TOS of my system: present me with the minimal amounts of data needed to render the original promised content and nothing more.

If we're not in alignment here, then I won't use your website and you won't get to use my computer.

But wait, how do I know what the TOS are for your website?

3. Your TOS might inform me that you're going to run JS and allow that JS to connect to third party networks, but I have to visit the abusive website in the first place to read the TOS and therefore allow the abusive behaviour to occur before I can agree to it or not.

That's a complete joke, frankly.

I cannot have you run some code on your server when I request a website from you because it's (a) not technically possible given the current protocols (but the reverse is very much possible) and (b) how would you know those are my TOS before accepting my connection? Why are you allowed to execute additional, third party code on my computer, outside of what's needed to render the original promise of content, without me first agreeing to it?

4. Adverts are often abusive in design and presentation.

They have to soak up as much personal information as they can to do their job: get a highly optimised, individual specific advert in front of the person visiting the site.

I have a right to feel safe when visiting a physical store. I shouldn't have to worry I will be attacked, robbed or that my personal property is used in a way that I couldn't agree to ahead of time (before entering.)

The same applies online: I should be able to visit a website without worrying about drive by malware, being tracked or getting more than I asked for.

Here's an example based in the physical world that to me exemplifies online ads and my points above.

Imagine you order a pizza from me. The pizza is free. There's no cost for the pizza. I turn up at your door. You open the door. My hand, and the pizza, pass over the threshold of your door, intro your private property.

Just as you're taking the pizza another person, who came along with me, walks past you and into your property, uses a stencil and paint to put an advert on the inside of your property, on the wall.

But wait, it gets worse, because the paint is from your own garage. They didn't even bring their own paint - they're using yours. But I might make $10 from that advert when you see it and buy the product... cool!

Now imagine you block that from happening in the future and order another pizza. The process repeats but this time you got a person blocking my person from painting the advert... hang on, that's piracy! You're stealing this pizza!

Summary: this is really actually not a problem with blocking adverts because we don't want to content creators to be paid, it's about not allowing unknown code to run on our local systems without first being allowed to understand it AND opt out of it.

Running an adblocker is no more privacy in the "Aaarr!" sense than me than simply wanting to not allow anyone and their dog to run code on my machine... because of course it's not like anyone would abuse that privilege right guys... guy? Right...?

EDIT: Here's my point - this is self defense.

"Ad networks run code on my system in order to render an advert. I block this as I did not consent to this, as the practices are abusive and go beyond the rendering of the advert (privacy concerns, big brother, censorship, etc.)
Not wanting to have something imposed upon me without my permission, and not having the ability to first accept or reject a website's TOS before entering, means I have to assume the worst case (malware, malicious intent, bad practices, etc.) and therefore protect my self ahead of time.

This is not piracy because I didn't know there were going to be adverts in the first place. And what adverts would have rendered were stopped by an adblocker or script blocker because I have to assume the worst will happen.

I'm saying it's not piracy because it's (digital) self defense. It's assuming the worst going into a website, putting up defenses to protect against that worst case scenario, and the side effect of that is the website's revenue source is blocked. Sorry, not sorry.

Find a better way of telling me about your products and services that doesn't mean I'm opening my self up to a good old fashioned digital screwing over."