> You're now making a different argument: it's unethical for an ad blocker to have their own ads?
This is a straw man. It's not unethical, it's nonsensical. If you serve ads you aren't an ad blocker, you're an advertiser.
> This ad blocker gives me control of whether I want to see any ads, how often I want to see them, and takes measures to prevent tracking.
Pretty much every ad blocker gives you control of whether you want to see any ads, and how often. Whitelists exist that allow some ads, they just don't get much use because outside of the out-of-touch HN bubble, very few people actually want to see any ads.
The difference is that other ad blockers are obviously more trustworthy because they aren't also in bed with advertisers.
> I can even choose to not block ads that aren't trying to exploit me.
More nonsense. "Trying to exploit you" is literally the purpose of advertising.
This is a straw man. It's not unethical, it's nonsensical. If you serve ads you aren't an ad blocker, you're an advertiser.
> This ad blocker gives me control of whether I want to see any ads, how often I want to see them, and takes measures to prevent tracking.
Pretty much every ad blocker gives you control of whether you want to see any ads, and how often. Whitelists exist that allow some ads, they just don't get much use because outside of the out-of-touch HN bubble, very few people actually want to see any ads.
The difference is that other ad blockers are obviously more trustworthy because they aren't also in bed with advertisers.
> I can even choose to not block ads that aren't trying to exploit me.
More nonsense. "Trying to exploit you" is literally the purpose of advertising.