The arguments about whether ad-blockers are legitimate or not and how publishers might retain revenue without the ability to serves ads to customers are all rendered moot by news which amply demonstrates why users choose to block ads.
ZDNet to reporting that Alexa Top 100 site DailyMotion has been serving ads which put viewers at risk of the Angler exploit.
The error is not DailyMotion's directly. It's ad serving platform sold the spot to the group pushing the exploit and the rest is history. 128m users have potentially been exposed.
In itself it is bad news. For publisher's arguments against ad-blockers it is nothing short of disastrous. The inability to trust the adverts served by such a high-profile site mean that the use of an ad blocker - on your desktop PC at least - becomes more or less mandatory.
The resolution for publishers has to come from the ad serving platforms. Greater scrutiny of what gets served to the sites and a significant reduction in what ads are allowed to do.
Until that happens it strikes me that any argument about the moral acceptability of ad blocking will be drowned out by the end-users right to protect their privacy.