If it was clear cool water, I'd be much more OK with it. But it's a steaming, bubbling, toxic, green/brown lumpy sludge that I refuse to let near my network.
I also don't think the green/brown lumpy sludge should be foisted upon the poor, but there are some rich folk that seem to have decided that it's OK to do so, and, confusingly-but-maybe-obviously, there ain't no government that's even tried to say that maybe that's not OK.
The FBI has even recommended the use of ad blockers to improve online safety.
https://www.securityweek.com/fbi-recommends-ad-blockers-cybe...
And the NSA and CIA seem to agree
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-nsa-and-cia-use-ad-block...
Not using an ad-blocker is no longer an option for me. After experiencing the web with one, browsing without one makes me want to never browse again.
Paying is not always an option and, when it is, it's often ridiculously overpriced. Websites send me their ads, I choose not to look at them. Should I somehow be forced to consume adverts on television, prevented from leaving the room or muting the sound?
I would have more sympathy if there were no alternative, but there's a very easy one where everyone wins: static ads. I won't block those and I can't block them!
I define what's OK to me. I am able (and legally allowed) to choose what my browser displays to me, so I use browser extensions to control my (and only my) experience of the web. I do not hurt anybody and I do not impinge on anyone's rights. I resent attempts at moral preaching aimed to make me feel guilty, especially when it's in defense of powerful entities that I find reprehensible and who do impinge on my life in ways that I object to.
My local bus company does not do that.
Hiring a bodyguard seems like the right solution if you are regularly at risk of aggression.
If ad blocker use is widespread and most people don't see a problem with it even if they don't use one themselves, it is culturally okay.