I've just stopped reading anything on The Atlantic. Sites that do such things are complicit in this problem.

I see this comment all the time, what people often fail to realize is that if you won't turn off your ad-blocker, the website doesn't want you. You cost them a small amount of money to deliver the content (bandwith) and they invest a modest capital into creating the content (paying writers, etc), and you offer nothing in return.

This doesn't mean you have to stay; if this behavior annoys you, don't read their content. But don't complain that their website is "sending you away", because that's exactly what they want. You laid out your demands (ignore the fact that I'm using an ad-blocker), and they're showing you the door.

And that's just fine too; there was an internet before these guys, there will be one after.

But, it would be nice if there were some way to filter out sites like this one, and others that have interstitials or the infamous "Forbes Thought Of The Day" and all the other nuisances.

Because I don't want to be on their site any more than they want me on their site. They just keep showing up in my various news feeds.

I think people are fully aware, but they're claiming that sites do not have unique content or provide other value that would be enough to justify display of the ads, or they think that all sites should always find non-ad based revenue streams yet provide open access.

Personally, I make a judgement call. On the Atlantic I got the ad block message recently and decided to switch it off as I find the content unique and well-written. They're not a news-aggregator or a spammer, their ads aren't that intrusive... I think it's a fair-call.

Can you imagine if Walmart banned classes of visitors who were unlikely to purchase things even though they use the toilets?

Stores do this already. Signs which read "Restrooms for customers only" are not uncommon.

That's not a "class" of customer, that's a status of being/not being a customer.

Class of customer, in the sense of the question, is a visual attribute of a customer making them unwelcome due the low probability of them being profitable for the store.

I can imagine businesses simply prohibiting the use of the toilets to people who don't buy things (“restrooms for customer use only”), which is a closer analogy: it's not about a retail store where you are browsing and may or may not buy, it's a place where you “buy” or not (by accepting ads) when you enter, and your access to other facilities is conditioned on that decision.

It's not unusual to see stores which have signs on their washrooms stating that they are "for customer use only".

If they banned people who walked in proclaiming that they had no money and no intent to buy anything - sure. Doesn't seem that strange for a shop.

Another option to view the article without Javascript-powered annoyances:

   curl https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/556214/ \
   |sed -n '/<section id=\"article/{s/.ad width=/<!ad width=/g;s/<div/<!div/g;/<p>/,/<\/p>/!d;/amp-img.*cdn.theatl/{s/amp-//g;s/layout=.responsive.//;};p;}'|tr -cd '\12\40-\176' > 1.htm 


   firefox file:///1.htm ;

The file "1.htm" contains no Javascript.

What ad blocker are you using? I didn't get redirected or anything with uBlock Origin on FF.

I'm also using uBlock Origin on FF. Huh. Maybe we have a different list of filters? I turned on the malware ones but otherwise it's basically stock.