LTT's “AdBlockers are piracy” is a tone deaf remark
34 comments
The level of mental gymnastics I'm seeing to deny this claim is astounding. Of course it's piracy, piracy is okay! It's interesting to see this touch a nerve so intensely, I think it's really exposing the lies people tell themselves to cope with a reality that isn't really internally consistent and that's why there's such a strong reaction.
Piracy is taking shit that doesn't "belong" to you but also doesn't cost anything to duplicate. It's a silly concept that shouldn't exist and only does so because we have a broken intellectual property system (though other broken systems contribute). That being said adblocking is still piracy. It doesn't matter that there are a bunch of good reasons to do it, it's still piracy.
Piracy is fine.*
[*] To be clear it's really not quite that simple because piracy does constitute some abstraction/derivative of lost revenue in our current systems and that does deprive people of value, however I think morally speaking it's pretty easy to come out on top if you are diligent about supporting creators in other ways. I don't make these choices easily, in general I'm down with drinking the hemlock, but the laws surrounding IP in the digital age are so obviously unjust and harmful that I'm not losing sleep.
Piracy is taking shit that doesn't "belong" to you but also doesn't cost anything to duplicate. It's a silly concept that shouldn't exist and only does so because we have a broken intellectual property system (though other broken systems contribute). That being said adblocking is still piracy. It doesn't matter that there are a bunch of good reasons to do it, it's still piracy.
Piracy is fine.*
[*] To be clear it's really not quite that simple because piracy does constitute some abstraction/derivative of lost revenue in our current systems and that does deprive people of value, however I think morally speaking it's pretty easy to come out on top if you are diligent about supporting creators in other ways. I don't make these choices easily, in general I'm down with drinking the hemlock, but the laws surrounding IP in the digital age are so obviously unjust and harmful that I'm not losing sleep.
> It's interesting to see this touch a nerve so intensely, I think it's really exposing the lies people tell themselves to cope with a reality that isn't really internally consistent and that's why there's such a strong reaction.
I'm not telling my self any lies. I deeply believe that my computer is my private property and I get full control over what executes on it. If you think otherwise you're delusional.
I want to control what runs on my computer because by not doing so I run the risk of allowing something malicious to execute and thus I suffer long term, and perhaps others directly connected to me also suffer. I want to prevent that and I do so by stopping JavaScript from running automatically in my browser.
I use uBlock for the same reason: I want to block elements from running on a website that aren't directly associated with the content I asked for. If after visiting the website it comes to light that the webmasters are actually only showing genuinely good adverts that are ethically and morally rendered (i.e. they're not using abusive practices), then I can choose to either whitelist that website or stop accessing it.
I get to choose who does what with my computer.
I'm not telling my self any lies. I deeply believe that my computer is my private property and I get full control over what executes on it. If you think otherwise you're delusional.
I want to control what runs on my computer because by not doing so I run the risk of allowing something malicious to execute and thus I suffer long term, and perhaps others directly connected to me also suffer. I want to prevent that and I do so by stopping JavaScript from running automatically in my browser.
I use uBlock for the same reason: I want to block elements from running on a website that aren't directly associated with the content I asked for. If after visiting the website it comes to light that the webmasters are actually only showing genuinely good adverts that are ethically and morally rendered (i.e. they're not using abusive practices), then I can choose to either whitelist that website or stop accessing it.
I get to choose who does what with my computer.
Everything you said is true but none of is relevant to whether or not adblocking is piracy.
Ad networks run code on my system in order to render an advert. I block this as I did not consent to this, as the practices are abusive and go beyond the rendering of the advert (privacy concerns, big brother, censorship, etc.)
Not wanting to have something imposed upon me without my permission, and not having the ability to first accept or reject a website's TOS before entering, means I have to assume the worst case (malware, malicious intent, bad practices, etc.) and therefore protect my self ahead of time.
This is not piracy because I didn't know there were going to be adverts in the first place. And what adverts would have rendered were stopped by an adblocker or script blocker because I have to assume the worst will happen.
I'm saying it's not piracy because it's (digital) self defense. It's assuming the worst going into a website, putting up defenses to protect against that worst case scenario, and the side effect of that is the website's revenue source is blocked. Sorry, not sorry.
Find a better way of telling me about your products and services that doesn't mean I'm opening my self up to a good old fashioned digital screwing over.
Not wanting to have something imposed upon me without my permission, and not having the ability to first accept or reject a website's TOS before entering, means I have to assume the worst case (malware, malicious intent, bad practices, etc.) and therefore protect my self ahead of time.
This is not piracy because I didn't know there were going to be adverts in the first place. And what adverts would have rendered were stopped by an adblocker or script blocker because I have to assume the worst will happen.
I'm saying it's not piracy because it's (digital) self defense. It's assuming the worst going into a website, putting up defenses to protect against that worst case scenario, and the side effect of that is the website's revenue source is blocked. Sorry, not sorry.
Find a better way of telling me about your products and services that doesn't mean I'm opening my self up to a good old fashioned digital screwing over.
That's a lot of text to rationalise it to yourself. It's at least in the spirit of piracy, and that's OK.
Now you're just being childish :-)
In the end, it breaks down like this.
AD (Youtube) Youtube says watch AD, then I'll give you the video. Pirate/Contested term: I will technologically circumvent the process and take the video anyway.
Traditional piracy: Store says give money, then I'll give you the video Pirate: I will technologically circumvent the process and take the video anyway.
The only difference here is that the "payment" is cash in one case, and an ad view in the other. Both cases deal with the same output, both put a barrier around the content, and both cases get that barrier circumvented via technological means that allow access to non-scarce content.
The most charitable I can be here, is that "it's really really close, but because it's not explicit monetary payment, it's not piracy".
But that's just playing word games. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, or some close relative of said waterfowl. There's no shame in admitting that. I happily adblock too, but I'm not going to pretend I'm doing some virtuous deed by rising against the man to block an ad. I'm blocking them cause I don't like the inconveniences and issues with ads, and to hell with the creators ad revenue.
So yes, I do think that those who skirt around that definition and rage at that are largely just trying to rationalize it with themselves.
AD (Youtube) Youtube says watch AD, then I'll give you the video. Pirate/Contested term: I will technologically circumvent the process and take the video anyway.
Traditional piracy: Store says give money, then I'll give you the video Pirate: I will technologically circumvent the process and take the video anyway.
The only difference here is that the "payment" is cash in one case, and an ad view in the other. Both cases deal with the same output, both put a barrier around the content, and both cases get that barrier circumvented via technological means that allow access to non-scarce content.
The most charitable I can be here, is that "it's really really close, but because it's not explicit monetary payment, it's not piracy".
But that's just playing word games. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, or some close relative of said waterfowl. There's no shame in admitting that. I happily adblock too, but I'm not going to pretend I'm doing some virtuous deed by rising against the man to block an ad. I'm blocking them cause I don't like the inconveniences and issues with ads, and to hell with the creators ad revenue.
So yes, I do think that those who skirt around that definition and rage at that are largely just trying to rationalize it with themselves.
> ...or stop accessing it
So you do acknowledge that continuing to access a website while blocking its ads is some kind of "moral wrong", no matter how minor?
So you do acknowledge that continuing to access a website while blocking its ads is some kind of "moral wrong", no matter how minor?
Only AFTER one has determined the webmasters aren't using abusive ad networks or practices, or both, to get those adverts to you.
What you're trying to ask is: do you white list once a website has shown itself to be decent?
Yes, when and where I remember. Sometimes it slips my mind.
What you're trying to ask is: do you white list once a website has shown itself to be decent?
Yes, when and where I remember. Sometimes it slips my mind.
Sometimes I forget to scan things at the self-service checkout too.
I think this is the distinction. People that see nothing wrong with piracy are happy to equate it to ad blocking.
Personally I will not pirate software but I'll block ads 'till the cows come home.
I find the two completely different from a moral stand.
Personally I will not pirate software but I'll block ads 'till the cows come home.
I find the two completely different from a moral stand.
Huh?
Piracy is about illegally reproducing and or distributing copyrighted work.
There’s no requirement for the recipient to view or even acknowledge the ad. The onus is on the distributor to do better.
Is ad stripping in DVRs considered a violation of copyright?
Piracy is about illegally reproducing and or distributing copyrighted work.
There’s no requirement for the recipient to view or even acknowledge the ad. The onus is on the distributor to do better.
Is ad stripping in DVRs considered a violation of copyright?
> Is ad stripping in DVRs considered a violation of copyright?
Why don't we ask TiVo?
Why don't we ask TiVo?
https://explore.tivo.com/promos/arppromo
Studios and broadcasters claim copyright violation, but it’s a dubious claim and overreach.
Studios and broadcasters claim copyright violation, but it’s a dubious claim and overreach.
> Of course it's piracy
At first define piracy and only then it would be possible to determine whether something is or is not piracy.
> Piracy is taking shit that doesn't "belong" to you...
This is a vague and imprecise description. If you are going to make definitive claims, you need a serious definition.
At first define piracy and only then it would be possible to determine whether something is or is not piracy.
> Piracy is taking shit that doesn't "belong" to you...
This is a vague and imprecise description. If you are going to make definitive claims, you need a serious definition.
I don't have an issue with piracy at all, but I think that calling ad-blocking piracy is completely incorrect.
I have a subscription to a number of news sites. I actually pay for their content. My ad-blocker still blocks a bunch of banners, trackers, and various other bits and bobs.
In the real world there are advertising banners outside my house. If I were able to block them, what exactly would I be 'pirating'? The skyline? The roads I already pay my local authority and national government for?
Adblocking isn't even always about monetary stuff. At some point in 2020 I installed a machine for a friend. On the first load of the browser I checked a news site. It had propaganda banners in the ad slots paid for by HM Gov about COVID-19 along both sides and the bottom of the screen in massive fonts telling me that I'm banned from going outside or whatever.
I don't need that stuff following me around either as it's obviously an attempt to manipulate my psyche. I use the Internet to learn things, not to be shouted at.
If I weren't able to use an adblocker then I'd limit my Internet use to only "old-web" style sites like HN. If that became impossible, I'd go back to books and encyclopedias, advertising is proletarian bollocks for weak minds, the more you remove it the better you are as a person because you are more in control of your own emotions.
I have a subscription to a number of news sites. I actually pay for their content. My ad-blocker still blocks a bunch of banners, trackers, and various other bits and bobs.
In the real world there are advertising banners outside my house. If I were able to block them, what exactly would I be 'pirating'? The skyline? The roads I already pay my local authority and national government for?
Adblocking isn't even always about monetary stuff. At some point in 2020 I installed a machine for a friend. On the first load of the browser I checked a news site. It had propaganda banners in the ad slots paid for by HM Gov about COVID-19 along both sides and the bottom of the screen in massive fonts telling me that I'm banned from going outside or whatever.
I don't need that stuff following me around either as it's obviously an attempt to manipulate my psyche. I use the Internet to learn things, not to be shouted at.
If I weren't able to use an adblocker then I'd limit my Internet use to only "old-web" style sites like HN. If that became impossible, I'd go back to books and encyclopedias, advertising is proletarian bollocks for weak minds, the more you remove it the better you are as a person because you are more in control of your own emotions.
Calling copyright infringement 'piracy' is completely incorrect too.
Haha, yeah.
Amusingly if you just switch the wording, "ad-blocking is copyright infringement" is obviously logically false without further work required.
Amusingly if you just switch the wording, "ad-blocking is copyright infringement" is obviously logically false without further work required.
> I have a subscription to a number of news sites. I actually pay for their content. My ad-blocker still blocks a bunch of banners, trackers, and various other bits and bobs.
Exactly. This is my point: the ad industry is abusive.
Exactly. This is my point: the ad industry is abusive.
In most cases I would agree, but in the case of tech reviewers? I actually kind of don't. Let me explain.
Tech reviewers have been flying under the radar a little bit, in what they do is actually already a form of advertisement. But wait, most of them are not really paid to review things... they're just given products for free in most cases that they have to return and so on. In reality this simply means the cost of the product is actually off-set to the users. When LTT gets the brand new nvidia graphics card (which he will return after testing) what he is doing is promoting the product and in my opinion he should be paid for that. By nvidia. Not by us.
Truly this is a very weird state of things, companies are getting tons of extremely cheap marketing (the cost is basically sending review units out) and there is a whole set of journalists that take advantage of our consumerism to generate content. Now, is this really a win for all? I don't think so.
In reality, I think, by using adblock you are sort of taking the cover off this completely irrational system. Why do we have to watch advertisement to watch advertisement? Reviews are obviously interesting, we want to buy good products and with so much offer it might get tricky to choose what is the best; but the way youtube reviews are sustained I believe is harmful to our interests... LTT do a great job to promote products for brands and that's why they are always some of the first to get review units but they are not some little joe talking about their experience with the phone they bought.
So I guess my point is kinda that professional reviewers are part of the advertisement machine and pretty much serve as a way of advertisement laundry for companies and like that maybe there's not really a need for them to exist as reviews are compiled and aggregated over the internet anyway. But idk, it's a difficult topic!
Tech reviewers have been flying under the radar a little bit, in what they do is actually already a form of advertisement. But wait, most of them are not really paid to review things... they're just given products for free in most cases that they have to return and so on. In reality this simply means the cost of the product is actually off-set to the users. When LTT gets the brand new nvidia graphics card (which he will return after testing) what he is doing is promoting the product and in my opinion he should be paid for that. By nvidia. Not by us.
Truly this is a very weird state of things, companies are getting tons of extremely cheap marketing (the cost is basically sending review units out) and there is a whole set of journalists that take advantage of our consumerism to generate content. Now, is this really a win for all? I don't think so.
In reality, I think, by using adblock you are sort of taking the cover off this completely irrational system. Why do we have to watch advertisement to watch advertisement? Reviews are obviously interesting, we want to buy good products and with so much offer it might get tricky to choose what is the best; but the way youtube reviews are sustained I believe is harmful to our interests... LTT do a great job to promote products for brands and that's why they are always some of the first to get review units but they are not some little joe talking about their experience with the phone they bought.
So I guess my point is kinda that professional reviewers are part of the advertisement machine and pretty much serve as a way of advertisement laundry for companies and like that maybe there's not really a need for them to exist as reviews are compiled and aggregated over the internet anyway. But idk, it's a difficult topic!
>Truly this is a very weird state of things, companies are getting tons of extremely cheap marketing (the cost is basically sending review units out) and there is a whole set of journalists that take advantage of our consumerism to generate content. Now, is this really a win for all? I don't think so.
I would say it is. Provided the coverage of the product's features is accurate and not misleading, if I see a product that I think is neat and buy it because of that, that's a win-win. I have something I like, the company gets money, and the reviewer gets content. This is basically advertising's idealized form. It only gets shady if there's misrepresentation of the product, or any of the other hacks.
>There's not really a need for them to exist as reviews are compiled and aggregated over the internet anyway. But idk, it's a difficult topic!
You wish, and I do too. One of the main features of a tech reviewer is relative consistency in review process. A GPU's performance is going to change drastically with the different devices with case, cooler and even climate affecting performance. Reviewers provide a degree of consistency there which cannot be replicated by the public at large. This can be somewhat mitigated by sufficient scale, but generally you're going to have to do far more work here. Note that one of the most common forms of compiled reviews are compilations of said tech reviewer's observed results.
I would say it is. Provided the coverage of the product's features is accurate and not misleading, if I see a product that I think is neat and buy it because of that, that's a win-win. I have something I like, the company gets money, and the reviewer gets content. This is basically advertising's idealized form. It only gets shady if there's misrepresentation of the product, or any of the other hacks.
>There's not really a need for them to exist as reviews are compiled and aggregated over the internet anyway. But idk, it's a difficult topic!
You wish, and I do too. One of the main features of a tech reviewer is relative consistency in review process. A GPU's performance is going to change drastically with the different devices with case, cooler and even climate affecting performance. Reviewers provide a degree of consistency there which cannot be replicated by the public at large. This can be somewhat mitigated by sufficient scale, but generally you're going to have to do far more work here. Note that one of the most common forms of compiled reviews are compilations of said tech reviewer's observed results.
Wearing sunglasses in Times Square is piracy.
It's their choice to make the content available for free on the web.
It's your prerogative to view this content in whatever browser you want. Is using lynx also piracy? It doesn't show ads and it doesn't even have JavaScript. No it's just how the web works.
And content creators don't have a monopoly on our attention. Going to the toilet during an ad break on TV isn't piracy.
If his comment had been that using some plugin like bypass paywalls was piracy, he'd have more of a point IMO. I use that one too by the way but I'm not really against piracy anyway. Using an adblocker however is too far-fetched a link for me.
Ps not that I'd watch LTT anyway. He's not very technical at all. Most of his videos are basically ads themselves.
It's your prerogative to view this content in whatever browser you want. Is using lynx also piracy? It doesn't show ads and it doesn't even have JavaScript. No it's just how the web works.
And content creators don't have a monopoly on our attention. Going to the toilet during an ad break on TV isn't piracy.
If his comment had been that using some plugin like bypass paywalls was piracy, he'd have more of a point IMO. I use that one too by the way but I'm not really against piracy anyway. Using an adblocker however is too far-fetched a link for me.
Ps not that I'd watch LTT anyway. He's not very technical at all. Most of his videos are basically ads themselves.
I don't care if it is piracy: "piracy" is a good thing. Digital goods are infinitely replicable and therefore non-scarce; any artificial scarcity we experience can only be imposed by external threats of violence. This is immoral.
Interesting point! I never thought of the content as being non-scarce before.
Do you feel copyright laws don't apply, or?
Do you feel copyright laws don't apply, or?
I completely agree. This is tone-deaf and outright ridiculous.
The whole premise ads-on-content is a bit of a stretch as it is. I don’t owe my attention to the ad because I watched the content. I’ve never felt bad changing the channel or muting the sound on a television when an ad is playing. I don’t see how this is any different.
Following the chain of thought, where any modifications of my legal copy of somebody's work is piracy, tearing a page from my own book is a piracy.
It sounds ridiculous, because it is.
It sounds ridiculous, because it is.
https://eyeo.com/eyeo-wins-copyright-court-case/
Ad blockers are an extension of this.
Ad blockers are an extension of this.
Ads have evolved into viruses, often literally. Just like viruses, ads attempt to sneak under your immune system, get into your subconscious and live there, wasting your energy on ads distributor's needs. From this point of view, an adblock is a hazard suit, and it's a genocide against viruses, as you're denying them an opportunity to live in your body.
At least in the context of YouTube where ad-blocking is very difficult, I think his claim holds.
If I put a video online with a paywall, but you figure out you can (non trivially) bypass the payment screen, I’d call that piracy.
In this case, the payment screen is the ad before the video.
If I put a video online with a paywall, but you figure out you can (non trivially) bypass the payment screen, I’d call that piracy.
In this case, the payment screen is the ad before the video.
> in the context of YouTube where ad-blocking is very difficult
No, it is not. All a regular user needs to do in order to remove all YouTube ads is to either:
1. install a browser extension like uBlock Origin or 2. install a mobile YouTube client like NewPipe or 3. install a script like youtube-dl
None of it is in any way difficult.
> payment screen is the ad
No, it is not. It is a mere inconvenience. An obstruction that can easily be avoided. Similar to newspaper ads or billboards. You can skip over them or just look away.
Precisely because of the simplicity to avoid YouTube ads, they cannot be used as a "payment screen" in any reasonable way.
No, it is not. All a regular user needs to do in order to remove all YouTube ads is to either:
1. install a browser extension like uBlock Origin or 2. install a mobile YouTube client like NewPipe or 3. install a script like youtube-dl
None of it is in any way difficult.
> payment screen is the ad
No, it is not. It is a mere inconvenience. An obstruction that can easily be avoided. Similar to newspaper ads or billboards. You can skip over them or just look away.
Precisely because of the simplicity to avoid YouTube ads, they cannot be used as a "payment screen" in any reasonable way.
Those workarounds only work because of a lot of work by the app/extension developers to bypass the ads. I know for a fact that google has teams working to fight adblockers and regularly see my Safari adblocker work on YouTube one day, and not work the next.
> because of a lot of work
That is possible. And irrelevant.
What matters is that it is simple for the end user.
===
Consider, for instance, a "payment screen" which would require the user to enter the exact value of a product of two huge numbers. It is difficult for any human to calculate it on their own. And the merchant is willing to provide it to them for a fee.
However, the user can also simply use e.g. a calculator in their mobile phone and get the correct number themselves in seconds.
There indeed was a lot of work put into the design of calculators and mobile phones etc. or into whatever other device the user chooses to use to get this number. But that is irrelevant. The important part is that a regular user can easily do it.
Now, consider another example where a "payment screen" would require the user to enter a unique number that only the merchant is able to issue and they will only provide it to the user in exchange for a fee.
In such case, the user can have any readily available resource at hand and they still would not be able to circumvent this kind of "payment screen" in any way. The only way through for them would be to obtain the required unique number from the merchant and pay for it in the process.
The later example can be considered a payment screen precisely because it requires the user to pay. That should, after all, probably be the definition of a "payment screen".
However, in the earlier example, the "payment screen" is only asking the user to pay. It does not enforce it. So, the users have an option to pay, if they like, or to not pay and calculate the correct number themselves by any of the trivial means that are readily available to them.
It is in my opinion disingenuous to suggest that there is any obligation to pay for a service that is offered in exchange for an optional fee. Similarly, I believe that judging those who choose not to pay for such a service or labeling their behavior as unethical is absurd.
It is the merchant's choice to have the payment optional. And therefore, they need to accept the consequences of this decision. In reality it would probably mean that some users will indeed choose not to pay.
That is possible. And irrelevant.
What matters is that it is simple for the end user.
===
Consider, for instance, a "payment screen" which would require the user to enter the exact value of a product of two huge numbers. It is difficult for any human to calculate it on their own. And the merchant is willing to provide it to them for a fee.
However, the user can also simply use e.g. a calculator in their mobile phone and get the correct number themselves in seconds.
There indeed was a lot of work put into the design of calculators and mobile phones etc. or into whatever other device the user chooses to use to get this number. But that is irrelevant. The important part is that a regular user can easily do it.
Now, consider another example where a "payment screen" would require the user to enter a unique number that only the merchant is able to issue and they will only provide it to the user in exchange for a fee.
In such case, the user can have any readily available resource at hand and they still would not be able to circumvent this kind of "payment screen" in any way. The only way through for them would be to obtain the required unique number from the merchant and pay for it in the process.
The later example can be considered a payment screen precisely because it requires the user to pay. That should, after all, probably be the definition of a "payment screen".
However, in the earlier example, the "payment screen" is only asking the user to pay. It does not enforce it. So, the users have an option to pay, if they like, or to not pay and calculate the correct number themselves by any of the trivial means that are readily available to them.
It is in my opinion disingenuous to suggest that there is any obligation to pay for a service that is offered in exchange for an optional fee. Similarly, I believe that judging those who choose not to pay for such a service or labeling their behavior as unethical is absurd.
It is the merchant's choice to have the payment optional. And therefore, they need to accept the consequences of this decision. In reality it would probably mean that some users will indeed choose not to pay.
EDIT: LTT = Linus Tech Tips.
This is all I have to say about adblockers and adverts:
1. Piracy is a willful act just as blocking JavaScript to protect one's self online is also a willful act, but it's not piracy because it's blocking adverts: that's just a side effect.
The ad gets blocked as most are served via JavaScript that I'm not authorising the run on my computer. My intention to was simply block arbitrary code from executing on *my * CPU - that's not piracy.
2. Code execution and 3rd party networks aren't something I'm authorising you to execute or connect to.
It's as simple as that. Those are the TOS of my system: present me with the minimal amounts of data needed to render the original promised content and nothing more.
If we're not in alignment here, then I won't use your website and you won't get to use my computer.
But wait, how do I know what the TOS are for your website?
3. Your TOS might inform me that you're going to run JS and allow that JS to connect to third party networks, but I have to visit the abusive website in the first place to read the TOS and therefore allow the abusive behaviour to occur before I can agree to it or not.
That's a complete joke, frankly.
I cannot have you run some code on your server when I request a website from you because it's (a) not technically possible given the current protocols (but the reverse is very much possible) and (b) how would you know those are my TOS before accepting my connection? Why are you allowed to execute additional, third party code on my computer, outside of what's needed to render the original promise of content, without me first agreeing to it?
4. Adverts are often abusive in design and presentation.
They have to soak up as much personal information as they can to do their job: get a highly optimised, individual specific advert in front of the person visiting the site.
I have a right to feel safe when visiting a physical store. I shouldn't have to worry I will be attacked, robbed or that my personal property is used in a way that I couldn't agree to ahead of time (before entering.)
The same applies online: I should be able to visit a website without worrying about drive by malware, being tracked or getting more than I asked for.
Here's an example based in the physical world that to me exemplifies online ads and my points above.
Imagine you order a pizza from me. The pizza is free. There's no cost for the pizza. I turn up at your door. You open the door. My hand, and the pizza, pass over the threshold of your door, intro your private property.
Just as you're taking the pizza another person, who came along with me, walks past you and into your property, uses a stencil and paint to put an advert on the inside of your property, on the wall.
But wait, it gets worse, because the paint is from your own garage. They didn't even bring their own paint - they're using yours. But I might make $10 from that advert when you see it and buy the product... cool!
Now imagine you block that from happening in the future and order another pizza. The process repeats but this time you got a person blocking my person from painting the advert... hang on, that's piracy! You're stealing this pizza!
Summary: this is really actually not a problem with blocking adverts because we don't want to content creators to be paid, it's about not allowing unknown code to run on our local systems without first being allowed to understand it AND opt out of it.
Running an adblocker is no more privacy in the "Aaarr!" sense than me than simply wanting to not allow anyone and their dog to run code on my machine... because of course it's not like anyone would abuse that privilege right guys... guy? Right...?
EDIT: Here's my point - this is self defense.
"Ad networks run code on my system in order to render an advert. I block this as I did not consent to this, as the practices are abusive and go beyond the rendering of the advert (privacy concerns, big brother, censorship, etc.) Not wanting to have something imposed upon me without my permission, and not having the ability to first accept or reject a website's TOS before entering, means I have to assume the worst case (malware, malicious intent, bad practices, etc.) and therefore protect my self ahead of time.
This is not piracy because I didn't know there were going to be adverts in the first place. And what adverts would have rendered were stopped by an adblocker or script blocker because I have to assume the worst will happen.
I'm saying it's not piracy because it's (digital) self defense. It's assuming the worst going into a website, putting up defenses to protect against that worst case scenario, and the side effect of that is the website's revenue source is blocked. Sorry, not sorry.
Find a better way of telling me about your products and services that doesn't mean I'm opening my self up to a good old fashioned digital screwing over."