Not sure I'd describe it as cylindrical.
I think that you are missing my point.
I don't care if people want to place ads on their sites, but I also feel no responsibility to view them, and site owners should not have an expectation of entitlement to that.
I am saying that sites which depend on banner-ads and the like to maintain their viability, are doomed to failure, because it's a broken financial model.
That is a pretty warped view of fairness...
Owners of sites publish for all sorts of reasons, but at the end of the day a site exists because there is a value to the owner.
If the site's content is unique and desirable, it might be that the value is in selling the content to readers.
Otherwise, it's a question of what other benefit(s) does the owner gain.
It might be self-promotion (future-employment-funded), product-promotion (profit funded), public-service (govt-funded), feel-good-hobby-etc (self-funded) or whatever... the list is long.
It doesn't matter what the reason is, so long as you know what it is and consider it to be more valuable to you for the site to be live, than not.
If you can gain some additional income by running banner-ads and the like, and not compromise the value of the site, then good luck to you... BUT don't expect to be entitled to that income or expect readers to feel compelled to cooperate and fund your site for you.
If your site wouldn't exist without that income stream, then you have a serious problem, and need to re-assess your reasons for publishing.
What you're saying is companies like Yahoo or Google shouldn't exist. As at least from their earliest days, their revenue comes from advertisements. (And even as of now, the revenue generated from advertisement is still one of the biggest portion.) And all WordPress blogs on free accounts should continue to exist unless their owners pay for them, right?
Site owners have no right to expect readers to provide them with an income stream via advertising.
However, that is not the same as saying they have no right to advertise.
If you are a site owner, then by all means advertise as much as you like, but you need to be sure that any income generated by it is not the make or break for the site's existence.
There needs to be a better model and reason than that, because it is not an income stream you can or should rely on.
If the existence of your site is dependant on such a dubious and unreliable financial model, then you really should be asking yourself why you are publishing the site in the first place.
@elmer: I think like 80% of non-entity based websites (websites not backed by profitable organizations) would not exist then, consider that even websites as important as Wikipedia needs to put banner to tell people to donate from time to time. Sites like W3Schools will shutdown, or goes to limited service like the KineticJS website.
Bandwidth (and other costs associated with hosting) does not come for free. If you takes part of it, you'd better to make sure at least you paid your part (or have sure you have someone else pay it for you). That's what I'd say to behave fair.
Sorry, but I don't agree.
Commercial or non-Commercial, ALL sites need to have a VALUE to someone, and ALL sites need to have a business-model that justifies its value to the owner.
Whether it is marketing value, or unique content value, or public-service value, or just feel-good value to the owner.
If the only "value" a site has for its owner is its ads, then the site doesn't deserve to exist.
I think that's not fair. If you use a site's content, it's your responsibility to share some of the cost to support their daily operation, and the advertisers are paying them on behalf of you.
Unless you're paying the website (like donation through PayPal, etc.), I don't feel it's right to completely prevent the site from getting money this way.
I do use Ad blockers, but I'll also selectively click on Ads occasionally just to make sure the site owner get funding to continue hosting the site.
Sorry, but this "readers should help website owners pay their bills by allowing ads" argument is utter rubbish.
Relying on ads to cover site costs, simply says that the site and/or its contents is not of sufficient value to either the owner or the readers.
If you need income generated from ads to keep a site live, then you need to re-think whether or not the site should exist.
I've tried a lot of these things, including AdBlocker... and my current preference is AdGuard.
Single O/S installation that then applies filtering to any browser you use.
It can be a bit too aggressive at times, but the UI is simple enough to allow quick exceptions, or to even temporarily disable.
Personally, I have no sympathy for sites that rely on ads for their revenue.
Nope - Terry Myerson announced that BOTH Pro and Enterprise will offer Windows Update for Business.