1. Regardless which type of adblocker (dns, browser, modified apps, ...) it always is with users consent, since its not the default.
2. If ads hadn't got this annoying, privacy abusing and dangerous(fake hotlines, malware, scam, ...) this wouldn't be something that is even required for an good security baseline. My employer requires that we use adblockers.
From the article:
> The study discovered that the majority of users did not choose to block ads, with ad-blocking technology often activated by a third-party like their employer at a network level, their educational institution, security software they installed, or public Wi-Fi networks.
So, it's mostly not done by user opt-in. I'm further puzzled to find that you self-identified as a user with an adblocker not by your own choosing:
> My employer requires that we use adblockers.
If so, then I would think the previous statement about adblocking being opt-in would still hold. It is just that advertisers are trying to indivually track and monetize employees on company devices and time. On my work machines I am generally not allowed to run software that my employer does not approve, why should ads be treated differently?
I wonder if this is why smartphone apps are taking over? Much easier to inject ads that cannot be easily blocked.
Cracking apps on Android that remove the ads and other garbage from popular apps are the new leet proggies.