> Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.

Doesn't history show us you just get both?

You pay to get into the movies, then they show you adverts before the film, then the film includes paid product placement of cars, computers, phones, food, etc.

You watch youtube ads, to see a video containing a sponsored ad read, where a guy is woodworking using branded tools he was given for free.

You search on Google for reviews and see search ads, on your way to a review article surrounded by ads, and the review is full of affiliate links.

Your implication that "you will be fed" other ads if you block the main ones is unsubstantiated. But even if it was true, it does not matter. Because the so-called "opaque" ads can and in my opinion should be blocked as well.

I think that in general blocking all ads is always a good idea.

The reason is that there is no negative consequence in doing so. A person has absolutely no obligation, not even an implied one, to watch or otherwise consume any ad. I think that as long as there are ways to remove or block ads, people should use them.

That being said, if the companies wish to intertwine their products with ads that are indistinguishable from the actual content and therefore unblockable, it is okay. They have the right to do that if they want.

But, in the same fashion, the customers have every right to turn away from all such products. And never consider using them ever again.

I don't buy this premise. Nothing stops a company from trying to hide ads in the first place, and plenty of them do. Ad blockers for web content have been a thing for years, and using an ad blocker has continued to be strictly a better experience regardless of how many "organic" ads are present on a page.

What possible reason could they have to not always run both? It would make zero sense to leave that money on the table