My apologies. I misunderstood your position.

I was under the (apparently incorrect) assumption that you believe folks should either watch ads, pay for the content with cash money or stay away from any site that one is unwilling to do so. Further, I got the sense (incorrectly) you were in support of not using defensive tools, as that would deprive the website owner of revenue -- especially upon first arriving at the site -- even if the content of the site was unknown prior to visiting.

If I seemed less than positive in my reply to you, it was due to the (apparent) misconceptions I listed above. My mistake.

Again, apologies and thank you for clarifying and setting me straight.

Unless I continue to misunderstand (and I hope not), I think we're pretty much in violent agreement here:

1. Content creators deserve to be paid for their work;

2. in support of (1), website owners have property rights which empowers them to require (or not) viewing of ads, paying of fees (whether those be subscriptions or single item sales) and/or other business models;

3. Sadly, ad networks (and many shady websites as well) aren't very good at blocking and/or want to distribute malware and abusive content to be run client side, requiring (or at least strongly incentivizing) end users to use ad/script blockers to protect themselves against those malicious actors;

4. End users also have property rights which empowers them to decide for themselves what code is permitted to execute on their (client-side) systems, and to restrict the access of downloaded code to limit data exfiltration.

Edit: I'd add that unless and until both the website owner and the client accessing the website can come to a "meeting of minds" there can be no contract, implicit or otherwise -- especially if there has been no previous interaction between those parties.