Perhaps I do not comprehend exactly how browsers work, what the end website has access to, or how exactly ad-blockers work.
Firstly, I do not believe any website has the right to tell me what I am and am not allowed to run on my own computer. Asking me to "disable" or not run an ad-blocker is dictating what I am and am not allowed to run on my computer. Asking me to add their site to a whitelist is far more polite. That assumes that adding them to a whitelist means their site, not 3rd party sites.
My old "host your own" argument... Is it blocking content on their site that adblock has identified as advertising or some app in the page that is pulling in content from third parties? Given that the Daily Mail and other newspapers are clearly able to sell advertising space for their printed newspapers, are they not able to do the same for their web content, or do they grab things from adserver sites?
Now comes the other side of this: They are publishing content, I am reading. I am not publishing anything. I do not need anyone to know what sites I have visited on the internet, where I have been, etc. They don't get this information if I read the newspaper so why should they get it if I read it on the web. Advertise general things that may interest some readers on the page. The more relevant it is to the article on the page, or if it is something that a lot of people use in their lives, the more likely it is. The fact someone doesn't click through and buy it immediately doesn't mean they won't buy the advertised item later when they need a product like it. The website should show the advertised item as content in the page. It should be clear that it is an advertisement, but there should be no need for intrusion or flashing images, and it should conform to the standards and not get blocked.
What I don't get also is where the ad=blocker sits and how they know I have one and that it is enabled. They are supposed to be serving content to my browser, and that is supposed to render the content and display it to me. Ideally the ad-blocker could sit between 2 and 3 and the end site would have no idea it is there. The ad comes through but I don't see it. The site can't see what is beyond the point where it has been sent to me. The bandwidth is still there but we're living in the age of fibre-optic broadband, at least I am, and bandwidth isn't a major issue to me. However it appears that this age of internet allows websites to see far too much of what is happening at my end. Unless I need to log into the site and maintain some kind of active session with it, I can't see why it would need to know anything.
I don't get why I need to have a browser at all. A Python script that can handle HTTPS protocol with request, response, post, etc. and could store whatever "cookie" I need to maintain a session for each request should enable me to get content from the site.
As I tried to tell google but couldn't, when they were asking about my use of youtube API: "I'm a client, not a server". I don't run a service you can access, I don't have a website. They had one form and I couldn't fill it because it assumed I'm a server.
The old days of internet browsing were much simpler because clients and servers knew where they stood, who is publishing and who is reading. Who is on TV and their action can be viewed by all, and who is sitting there behind the TV watching in private. Even if I can click the "red button" it should still be relatively unintrusive, and it should certainly be totally unintrusive if I don't. Why can't web be the same?
TV channels show ads and companies pay them money to show them. If I turn over the TV during the ad-breaks or go off to the bathroom or to make a cup of tea, I don't have them yelling at me. Nor of I have recorded the TV show and wind on the ad-breaks. They don't tell me I have to wait 30 seconds before I can press the fast-forward button. Why can't web be the same?