It's bad enough we got extra work for those who use adblockers. Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach.

It's also deeply paternalistic: Even if it is meant well - and I assume that's the case here - it implies the site operator knows better than the user what is good for them.

Finally, this will also lower the guards of less technical users for installing random plug-ins on website demand.

From a subjective gut feeling: Please do not do this. Let people decide what they need, and what they don't need.

>Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach.

This already happens with every ad successfully shown to a person. Why don't you criticize the ad business for much more extensive overreach instead of someone doing harmless activism on their own website?

> Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach.

This is far from the same as the overreach of many (most?) ads. From the description: “It’s shown off to the side, and never covers content. It won’t be shown if there isn’t enough space.”. In fact the space issue is overly careful, on my protrait 1080p monitor it doesn't show because 1080 pixels is just a little too thin for its test.

And someone who is used to how things are without a blocker, is unlikely to notice this extra little (non-animated, soundless, out-of-the-way) message in the general melée!

> Finally, this will also lower the guards of less technical users for installing random plug-ins on website demand.

That is a fair point (though those guards seem so low enough already in general that this will make litle real world difference). Instead of pointing to a particular thing to install, when I do this on my output I'll point to a page listing common options and a warning about installing random stuff without at least minimal research.