That doesn't mean it's not vandalism, too. The fact that no property is actually destroyed does mean that, but I think there is a qualitative difference between blocking ads and attempting to swamp ad-pricing signals with injected noise.
Ugh, we've had this argument so many times.. By your logic, the website operator can also say "it's my website, I'll serve the ads I want the way I want.. don't like it? don't visit my site"
And yet, there you are anyways, with your ad blocker.. hard to take the high ground I think..
Indeed they should. In most cases, they still send the page when requested. The problems start when authors decide they don't just want to control what they serve at their website. The advertising model also requires control of the client to guarantee that the ads are shown.
That kind of control is possible with a contract (e.g. a paywall or similar controlled access). Instead, a lot of "content creators" want to have the benefits of a contract but only from one side.
> And yet, there you are anyways, with your ad blocker
So stop sending them data when they ask for it. In the meantime, ad blockers are going to show exactly how little some "content" was actually worth. If your content is worth so little that nobody is willing to pay for it in money or time, don't be surprised when attempts to force payment (in time or attention) results in blowback.
> hard to take the high ground I think
It isn't unethical to use as desired data that you were freely given. The only people that are ceding ethical high ground are "content creators" that want to control how people use their website. Delusional beliefs about what they think contract law ought to be is no substitute for a business model that understands what the internet actually is.
--
TL;DR - We aren't ethically obligated to prop up your business plan that relies on artificial scarcity. If you don't want people to read your web pages, stop sending those pages without pre-{payment,authorization}. I suggest finding a better business plan.
