---
START OF RANT
If you block ad-blockers (like forbes.com just did to me), I will only share your articles via archive.is .
Sure, your children may starve to death, your wife may leave you but don't blame me because in the end you did all this to yourself. I was happy to use your site when it had a couple of non-intrusive text ads to pay the bills but then you went to fill 60% of the screen with flashing images, autoplaying videos and malware installing flash ads.
END OF RANT
I don't block ads to prevent companies from getting ad revenue. I block ads for my own safety and malware prevention.
Then again, maybe your site being annoyingly slow for people who block ads is a feature rather than a bug.
The problem is: right now we are in a weird middle, in which media companies want the text to be fully available (so you can arrive to it via Google and/or social media) while, simultaneously, only visible to those who don't use an ad blocker.
This is of course impossible, but that's how we got stuck in this strange position of "I put it online for free, but I didn't mean free for you".
IMHO, a full all-or-nothing approach would be well received. Whether it would be economically successful, that's another story.
I work in marketing, and I think the issue is that advertising is a disaster. It's the tragedy of the commons. Highly annoying or misleading ads (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD) get way more clicks and impressions. Don't even get me started on autoplaying videos. The worst offenders are traditional media companies, who are both the reason why I'm using an ad blockers and also the most likely to block me for using an ad blocker.
I don't particularly feel bad about blocking ads, but I think ads are a good way to support websites. There are very few sites I trust enough to unblock ads on though, and it's because their ads are both unobtrusive and relevant to the content.
Just for example, the Chicago Tribune's print ads are fine. Their website ads are almost entirely link to fake news articles that make the National Enquirer look like the New York Times.
Now obviously the "2 seconds" would need to be tweaked to be slower. Throttling my internet to 'GPRS' in Chrome results in the site thinking I'm using an ad blocker (for this demonstration, I disabled it). It took 2.10s before my browser tried to download adv.css which resulted in me being flagged for using an ad blocker.
You'll want to serve your site to users quickly or you'll raise your bounce rate (and possibly get less ad impressions as a result). But now you're looking at a 3s~ delay just to serve an image. Imagine if you had a site, more images, some javascript, etc? Would users even attempt to browse your site if every page load took 3-5 seconds to read the content because you were waiting to serve content while detecting if they are using an ad blocker?
If AdBlockers hurt you so much that having a 3-5s delay to serve your website is a realistic alternative you're better off shutting up shop or dealing with the fact your site is simply not profitable.
