While in print ads don't (can't) do this.
Online they open to the whole page after some time, they constantly animate things to draw your attention from the text, some play sound, videos, left, right, above, below and in the text between paragraphs and capturing links.
Main reason probably because they don't really work.
If one is concerned with privacy, there are alternative measures such as cookie blocking options, legislation, etc.
If the ad formats are annoying then the right thing to do is to let the publisher know and work out a way to pay for the content ad-free or just stop using the site.
I also feel the same way about the bit-torrents and downloading copyrighted content. But, maybe I am the only one who feels this way.
But on a metered Internet connection the ads can increase cost. That's pretty lousy - I pay to get this extra content that I don't want, in order to provide minimal payment to the content creator.
Some movie studios realised that one thing driving torrent downloads was the fragility of DVDs / BluRays in the hands of children, and people wanted backups. So they started offering electronic downloads for people who bought the disc, or free disc replacements.
If it is theft blocking (aka not reading) ads online, is it theft if I just don't read them? And I don't want to argue, just interested, where is the difference in not reading them and blocking them? Is it morally imperative to read all ads in a magazine?
So I came to the conclusion, because I throw away ad supplement of magazines right away and don't read ads in magazines, me ad blocking can't be theft either, or not reading ads in magazines is theft too.
PS: Because you bringing up bit torrent implying people who ad block are also downloading films, well, I'm not.
If not, what is it specifically that makes the first ok but not the other?
I would not steal a magazine form a news stand or break a lock to get a magazine. But I throw away ad supplements before I read anything in a magazine.
Here's a different POV. Using an ad blocker is not theft: it's a negotiation.
When I click on a link to your site from a site like HN, I have not implicitly agreed to whatever terms you would like to impose on me. I can't even really know them ahead of time.
Instead, I'm sending my User Agent to negotiate fetching some resources. If I decline to fetch your ads, you can feel free to decline to serve me your content. Or you can give the content to me anyway. Your choice.
"What header does your browser send to my server informing me that you are blocking ads so that I know to deny you my content?"
1. "Did you just make it up?" -> No.
2. "Which ad blockers provide for that header being sent?" -> Use a plugin in Firefox to set custom headers
3. Do website honor my header? -> Not yet.
Response 2: a few sites are already popping up messages asking you to turn off your ad blocker, which is at least a partial existence proof.
Response 3: if you want to know whether I got your ads, use cookies or make the request url unique to me, and then check that your ad servers served the appropriate requests before allowing your content servers to serve me content.
But seriously, I shouldn't be required to solve all these problems for you as a user in order to not be called a thief. If you want a more explicit contract, then require a log in. If that adds too much friction, invent a better a better solution.
*Edited to remove the inflammatory suggestion to go out of business if you refuse to negotiate.
Sounds like the type of negotiation the mob engages in. But, hey, as long as you get what you want, I guess it is ok.
I don't think it's right that publishers seem to view me showing up at their front door as carte blanche to abuse my network and system resources to the full extent that JavaScript allows. And I think it's wrong to characterize user pushback as theft. Other kinds of "theft" are criminal behavior. Pick better terms.
Adverts are non-consensual hijacking of users resources, so you could argue that advertisers are committing theft. You're welcome to use a paywall on your site, or hide content from people using adblockers if you want to negotiate from your side.
But, for that really to be an equitable negotiation, IMO, these ad-blockers should send a header that informs the content provider that they will be blocking ads and the site can choose whether or not to serve them content.