Fair enough. One of the things that has influenced my thinking on this topic was living through the laws on smoking being enforced. But perhaps a better analogy is noise laws. For me, it's preferable to use the power of the state to _prevent_ someone from pushing something on you that you object to. Not to outlaw the objectionable thing, but rather to insure that people have a straight forward way to avoid the thing and can be assured that if they take those steps they won't have that thing imposed upon them. When we use state power to deny people agency, that's when it gets dicey for me and that was what I 'heard' when I read the original article. I dislike drug laws for that reason, I think it is reasonable to ban the use of drugs by people who are doing things where the effects of drug use can cause harm to innocent bystanders, but I think it unreasonable to ban their use by individuals in their own home where all the consequences are landing on their own head.
I too use ad blockers and privacy protectors, and people are constantly trying to get around them. THAT behavior should be outlawed I think. If I'm choosing to use blockers and you don't like that, then deny me your website. That's your choice. Deploying exploits so that my adblocker doesn't work? Or convincing the people who wrote browsers that adblockers are theft? THAT is bad behavior (again in my opinion of course).
I too use ad blockers and privacy protectors, and people are constantly trying to get around them. THAT behavior should be outlawed I think. If I'm choosing to use blockers and you don't like that, then deny me your website. That's your choice. Deploying exploits so that my adblocker doesn't work? Or convincing the people who wrote browsers that adblockers are theft? THAT is bad behavior (again in my opinion of course).