I believe the reverse is true. Content providers promise content via hyperlinked text instead they dishonestly deliver content plus ads, something I did not agree to.

Now the obvious thing to say is - "well people won't pay to see the content" And to that I will respond by thinking: "hmmm, does the content really have any value then?"

Pretty much. You can't pay rent with "attention". It's just like the people that try to get designers to do work for free because of "exposure".

"Regardless I never agreed to view ads in trade for access to content and to be completely fair it was not offered to me in this way."

Yeah, you kinda did. This is the implicit agreement of the internet. If you don't like it, that's fine; there's nothing wrong with that. The point at which it does become wrong is, instead of going to some other website that doesn't do this, you continue to view the content, draining their bandwidth and resources, as though you are entitled to the content. If you don't want to view ads, go to sites that either offer content on a subscription basis and pay that, or on a donation basis.

Says who. The Internet was here before the corporations got ahold of it. And as a matter of fact, so was I.

If someone puts up something in a public space I have every right to view it in the way I please. That includes not looking at parts of it.

EDIT: apparently they use Anonize, that's interesting.

https://anonize.org/assets/technology.html

I think the point is that average people wouldn't know how to get an ad blocker, but would notice the massive perf benefits of having one.

A browser whose entire focus is on adblocking is therefore exactly what they would appreciate: out of the box, it works great.

Of course for us tech people here, installing an ad blocker is easy, so it seems a little silly. But we are a tiny fraction of the market.

  <form method="post" action="...">
    <input type="hidden" name="_method" value="DELETE"/>
  </form>