I was just reading an article on Wired when I noticed this [0], which got me thinking, should I whitelist them?
I felt I should, and if them, why not other sites?
The only way sites earn is by ads right, so If I like their content and don't view ads, am I 'cheating'?
[0] : http://i.imgur.com/MwkiyO1.png
Wired in particular has a print magazine which is mostly funded by print ads, and they are owned by Advance Publications which did $8B in revenue last year so I wouldn't worry about them too much.
You should strive to support the things you benefit from and not just be a leech. But it also isn't an offense that merits committing hara kiri either.
I say this as someone who runs a number of sites that don't really make money. I do have a notice that says "Thank you for white listing," but the general lack of financial success of my work is far more complicated than "You evil ad block users killed my monetization!"
If it bothers you enough to ask, consider coming up with some thoughtful personal policy that makes you more comfortable than what you are doing currently.
Featured posts, donations, merchandise, subscriptions, pay-per-use (paywall), sponsors.
I took the better approach, which is also more fair for them: I don't visit them at all.
It also depends if they get paid per ad impression or ad click. Though I don't think ad-clicks are common nowadays.
Not visiting their site has the same result, but is more "morally acceptable" for not using server resources. I don't agree with ads on principle - and an ad asking me to remove my ad blocker is still an ad.
I honestly don't get this part. You don't visit any website that has ads?
I do this because, to me, it is implied they would rather not have me visiting if I do not white list them. Which is reasonable and understandable if ads are their main business model.
If it is merely a request but they explicitly state that continued use of the site with your ad blocker active is OK, I'll continue use of the site.
E:
I went off on a tangent. Removed the unnecessary bits.