There's a pretty significant difference there, though. They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at, while you're costing them money just to be malicious. If you don't want to look at the content, just don't. If you want to look at the content but don't want to see ads, use an ad blocker. Punishing them for trying to stay afloat while giving you something you want is just pathological behavior.
You can rationalize it however you want, but there's only two possibilities.
1. People like you, who say "but I can just ignore ads" are right, and ad companies are about to go out of the business.
2. People who are convinced that ads don't affect them are wrong.
It doesn't seem like ad companies are struggling to me? So the logical conclusion is that ignoring ads doesn't work.
Now on the retaliation. Anyone trying to expose me to ads is aggressively trying to compromise my decision making process. Since they started, I see nothing wrong with defending myself by increasing their costs.
>They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at
The real cost is that your decisions are compromised.
