I look at the internet as a kind of marketplace. Some stores accept cash, some lease their products (subscriptions), and some require me to look at advertisements.
When I want something that is available from several vendors I have a choice. But when it is only available from one vendor I don’t.
Eventually the market will decide which businesses succeed or fail.
Yeah. I usually don’t mind them either. The exception is when a third party is monetizing a podcast (free hosting services like Podbean) and they’ll sometimes cut sentences in half with ads that are very poorly targeted. 
I’m sympathetic to thus view, and much of the time I’d agree. But when we’re dealing with players the size of Google, it distorts the market in a way that makes it fundamentally not a free market.
Some may see Google search as a “walled garden”. I think of it more like the US dollar or the Euro, a preferred currency. YMMV
Is it possible to quickly toggle it on or off? I do web development, and I semi-regularly need to be able to shut off certain browser protections to test things out.
Some obvious ones.
But I will leave this discussion with a quote that sums up my opposion to advertising and marketing:
… the most devastating and most demonic part of advertising is that it attempts to persuade us that materiel possessions will bring joy and fulfillment. [Quoting Bellah, R N. (1975). The Broken Covenant“. New York: Seabury Press. p134.] ‘That happiness is to be attained through limitless material acquisition is denied by every religion and philosophy known to man, but is preached incessantly by every commercial on television.’ Advertisers promise that their products will satisfy our deepest needs and inner longings for love, acceptance, security and sexual fulfillment.
Ronald Sider. (1977). Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, London: Hodder and Stoughton. p41
Would you be OK paying for all content on the Internet?
iPhone takes a few steps, not super easy.
Mac has an icon in the menu bar you can toggle quick and easy.
I don’t inherently disagree with the idea that advertising’s purpose is, typically, to convince us that “more stuff” will make us happy. But the question from @rkaplan is perfectly-stated, and is really the crux of the matter.
It’s like a walk-in public library. One does not have to be a resident in the area who pays local rates/taxs or even someone who pays them at all.
I think that analogy falls apart relatively quickly.
The content in the library is already purchased. The creators have been compensated. Occasional freeloading from out-of-town guests is (a) rare, for geographic reasons, and (b) non-impactful, since the out-of-town guests can’t do anything other than read the books at the library.
The problem with hyper-aggressive ad blocking is that the content isn’t purchased, the creators haven’t been compensated, and the frequent number of “out of town guests” is absolutely impactful due to server and resource costs.
Breaking my “I’m done” status. Here in the UK libraries are also a meeting place for non-workers. With the pending budget announcement that the government is going to restrict winter fuel payments — previously given to anyone who was either in receipt of benefits or over the age of retirement — they are now used as heat-ing places.
The problem with the counter argument is that people setup a web site expecting others to pay for it.
All of this goes to the root of capitalist mentality. Capitalists do not like Ponzi schemes because Ponzi schemes demonstrate that capitalism is itself a massive Ponzi scheme.
When did so many websites start displaying “please turn off your adblocker” notices? I just turned on ad blocking on my eero router and started seeing these on several sites I frequently visit. All had a button that allowed me to continue to the site but I doubt that will continue forever.
Even some big news sites like the New York Times has recently started plugging holes in their paywall. It appears “free with ads” websites may have to start looking for other ways to survive.
I turned my adblocker back off.
I agree. That’s how “free” services work. Even Apple shows us targeted advertisements on some of its services like Apple News and Stocks. But neither Google or Apple sells user data to anyone. Apple doesn’t because that’s their policy. Google doesn’t because our user data is what makes their advertisements so valuable. It’s the goose that keeps laying golden eggs.
The library example doesn’t hold water. While there is no additional charge to the patrons, everything, books, staff, and even the heat are paid for.
You seem to be arguing that search engines should be provided with no source of income for the provider.
Setting up and running website is not free. If it provides value why shouldn’t it be paid for by those who get that value?
They set up web sites hoping others will find it useful - in which case they can monetize it. What’s wrong with that?
Do you expect people to write content useful to you, build a site, and host the site for free?
Do you pay the grocery store for your food - or do you reject that too as a “Ponzi scheme”?