So you're entitled to that content for free? If you really hate ads that much, and you use a site with any frequency, it only seems right to buck up and pay or not visit the site.
The web browser sends a request to the server requesting something, and the server can either say "200 OK" and send you the document, or it can do something else, such as refuse.
If it does send you the document, this does not create any other obligations on your part; for example it doesn't create an obligation to issue further requests so as to download images referred to in <img> tags in the document. Even if you do so download them, there's no obligation to actually render them on any particular device.
If the server owner objects to this he needs to configure his server to do something other than reply "200 OK" to arbitrary requests.
Browsers are under the users control, always have been. That's the strength of the medium. Yes, that means it's both harder to force people to read ads than with pre-dvr television and harder to hide the fact they aren't reading ads than with newspapers.
Should I also be reading all of an article that I found boring because not clicking on page 2 is cheating the site out of page views?
I get that the business model of advertiser supported content is threatened by ad blocking, but since when is it the consumers/users fault when a business model fails due to being poorly adapted to a new medium?