According to my research, there are some ad-blocking technologies that are actually illegal.
I am a Catholic user of Brave and I do not use Brave’s ad-blocking feature because I suspect the browser would, at times, block ads using illegal methods.
My feature-request is for there to be an ad-blocking setting that specifically does not use any of these “circumvention” technologies or any other illegal methods i.e. a strictly-legal ad-blocker setting.
The source of the article is heavily biased against AdBlock. Their name is BlockAdblock. Those types of articles are just written so people wouldn’t trust AdBlock. What technologies are even circumvented? The article is just vague. Of course, something which breaks copyright will be illegal, but they are implying that AdBlockers are doing that. This looks like a youtube-dl situation all over again. The laws they mentioned looks like copyright laws. In the end even if, which is highly unlikely, there are some “circumvented technologies” they wouldn’t go after users but those who distribute them. If they were such technologies, no AdBlocker would survive.
In the end, this article looks like bait for someone who is easily impressionable, it’s purpose is to spread doubt and convince people not to use AdBlock, in a way that looks scary to them.
I believe the “circumvented” technologies are the access-control technologies. If a site restricts people from viewing it if they’re using an ad-blocker and they’re able to use their ad-blocker to access the site without its adverts, they must have done so using a “circumvention technology” to circumvent the access-control restriction.
Well yes, if content on the internet is copyright-protected and the website uses access-control technologies to restrict you from viewing it if you’re using an ad-blocker and you view the copyright-protected content anyway, then yeah, I think they’re arguing that this would be a violation of copyright. I think that makes sense.
Edit: I just thought about it some more and I disagree with the second part of what I just said. Breaking Anti-Circumvention laws isn’t the same as breaking Copyright laws. Just because you broke an Anti-Circumvention law, that doesn’t mean you violated a copyright. Right, so with this then, I really don’t think the article I linked suggests that adblockers violate copyright. Violating access-control is what’s talked about, not copyright.
i think all ads block is true, but ads is from satan because any ads block is holy 
Basically, it’s fake news.
It’s like saying: “you can watch TV, but you must not change the channel during the commercial”.
There is no such thing as a law forcing you to watch ads and/or commercials — especially if they track you everywhere without your knowledge.
You know, I think you’re right. If corporations really could attack adblockers on legal grounds, I’m sure they would have by now.