How is that terrible? (this is not their business model in reality) Do you not agree that by using these features you deprive sites of revenue? Adblock believe that unintrusive ads should be permitted to allow free sites to remain free.
This is a perfectly reasonable position to take and it is unfair of you to attack them.
How?
> b) Who determines which ads are "unintrusive"?
Adblock
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/adblock-gets-sold-acceptable-...
Then I think your only option to remain logically consistent is to not install any ad blocker.
Why do people post this nonsense. Their use is to block intrusive ads. They are very clear about it and every argument against this has been incredibly misleading.
Whether payment is required or not isn't even clear, because it is mentioned only as a potential.
The obvious conflict of interest from making payments even optional for advertisers makes them clearly untrustworthy.
Regarding Adblock: b) I posted another comment elsewhere about how choosing which ads are "acceptable" or not presents challenges. There is a lack of objectivity. It should be a choice between ads or no ads.
If Adblock Plus believes that sites should be able to make money from advertising, they shouldn't make an Adblock product. It's a total conflict of interest.
It's like a bank vault company allowing selected criminals through the vault doors because they believe the poorest in society have a moral right to take from the rich if their situation is bad enough, as defined by the vault company.
It's sleazy.