Yes, they allow certain "non-obtrusive" ads by default. Some people might be fine with this, but it should absolutely be opt-in, and their deal with an ad company is the only reason it's the default.
ABP allows "acceptable" ads that are acceptable insofar as they meet certain standards one of which is paying them money effectively renting your eyeballs to advertisers.
Ublock Origin: A powerful and performant ad blocker by its creator
Ublock. After the above dev tried to pass the torch to the loser who now controls this he instantly edited information removing all information about the person who actually created it and fund raise off it to the point where the original dev renamed his fork of his own work Ublock origin after it was taken down on behalf of the scumbag who now runs ublock.
In short there is no reason to use anything but Ublock origin
Yeah I wish the dev accepted donations. Ublock makes my life so much better and I have a hard time being online without it. That's something I'd gladly donate to. You can donate to the maintainers of the block-lists though
I'd be really curious how much my internet use "costs" to advertisers and if I could/would pay that amount instead.
Like, the advertiser paid $0.0005 to serve that ad to me so I'll just pay that amount directly to the site and not be served the ad. Just incorporate it into my internet bill and I'd pay just like I do for power or gas. And would my willingness to not see ads make me more or less valuable to advertisers and affect the math?
I don't like the subscription model as it seems like the price point isn't based on actual cost at all and like they're double-dipping by still selling my info. Charge me the actual cost plus a reasonable profit margin of 10%-20%. How much would that be? Is advertising really so valuable that I wouldn't be willing to pay that amount? If so, are advertisers overselling the efficacy of their product?