Apparently, Linus Sebastian (of "Linus Tech Tips") said that ad-blocking is basically piracy. But given the intrusive, invasive, interruptive nature of many ads and the extreme data-collection that accompanies them, ad-blocking is the only sensible and sane choice. It is okay to choose a small number of trusted sites and unblock for them--if you choose to do so--but in general, ads should be blocked.

The #JavaScript used to serve ads has been hijacked on occasion to install malware, in addition to its role in the data collection and spying that advertising networks do.

But as for the moral argument he's reaching for:
* the site is paid by the ad vendor
* the ad vendor is paid by the advertiser
* therefore, the site visitor has no obligation to allow or view ads on the site. If that affects the site's revenue so deeply that it is no longer worthwhile to run the site & produce the content that the site displays, then someone should be looking at alternate revenue sources (e.g., offer t-shirts and mugs with the site's name and logo
* the site visitor and site owner / administrator have no agreement express or implied which requires the allowance and viewing of advertisements