It's certainly an option. It's easy enough to detect adblock, and send the user to a "Since you're not prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt that we'll show you a few useful unobtrusive adverts, please donate something or get lost" page, or otherwise degrade their experience.

For example, if the user has disabled javascript, sites should degrade gracefully. Likewise, if the user has disabled common forms of advertising, it'd be good for the website to disable any features that cost them a lot of money to run. Say it's a photo sharing site, give adblock users lower limits or something.

Adblock usage is a very small minority though, so unless you're a massive site (And want the very vocal minority to moan about how they should be free to leech all the content they want without giving anything back), probably not worth it.

Using adblock actually makes things worse for everyone. If you don't use adblock, and a site abuses your trust by doing popup ads, garish flash ads, then don't go there again. Stick by those principles. If everyone did that, then websites with intrusive stupid adverts would die off. By using adblock, you're rewarding those practices, but since you're never going to click on anything, the webmasters will likely make their ads more intrusive and garish to try and increase their CPM.

It's a safety buffer and a very, very important one.

Unless you donate to the site/project or enable ads after that you are leeching content.

The responsibility for that goes both ways. If you depend on ad revenue for your entire revenue stream your business model is flawed. Let users do things like purchase the model outright to avoid annoyances or to donate. It's unfair to assume that a product won't be supported.

Well the thing is, no it doesn't. It makes things a lot better for me, because I don't have to look at ads.

But the funny thing is, I do look at ads, and quite a bit. Any site serving its own ads is not blocked. For example, I just went to railscasts.com and I saw a lot of ads - tasteful, non-animated, and I don't mind at all. What I cannot stand are animated or ugly ads, so I block them. So I had a problem, it's now solved, end of story.

"Stick by those principles."

But it's not my duty or interest to spend a lot of time like this, to "vote" for some sites and boycott others, to teach them a lesson. They have to figure it out. If they do, bring their ads in-house, and make them tasteful and relevant, then I wouldn't take any further action. But "fighting the power" like you propose? It's just not my battle.

"since you're never going to click on anything, the webmasters will likely make their ads more intrusive"

They can do what they want; I'm never going to see them.

Unfortunately some people will try to hack it, tragedy of the commons and all that.

I think if adblock usage increases (I don't think it will), we'd move to a 2 tier internet - a degraded slimmed down internet for adblock users, and the full internet for everyone else. Which I think would be fair and just.