Believe me, I wish you had demonstrated understanding rather than merely asserting it and then demonstrating the opposite.

Wow. It's almost as if you haven't even read a single thing I've said.

So let me just recap a bunch of sentences said by mean that blatantly demonstrate that I understand the difference between being entitled to try and entitled to succeed.

Both sides are entitled to do what they're trying to do. If advertisers fail to achieve what they're trying to do because you blocked them, that is indeed their problem and not yours.

But they're absolutely entitled to show you ads, as they pay the service you're using for that right. Actually viewing and digesting the ads is out of their control.

To use your own example, advertisers are allowed to show you their ads on billboards (depending not the city/state). You are allowed to not look. They pay money to the owner of the billboard to advertise on the space, they're entitled to it... because they paid for it. You are entitled to not looking, or digesting.

Showing you something =/= you actually looking at it.

Advertisers are entitled to show you ads, because they paid for the right. Showing does not mean that you are watching.

I can show you a picture of my dog all I want, I'm free to do that. You are free to not look.

All of these statements are me clearly stating in a multitude of ways, that it is impossible for them to be entitled to succeed. You have stated that it's impossible for them to be entitled to succeed, and not only have I flat out agreed with you... I've told you that I agree with you, and that I'm not once arguing against this fact. You have repeatedly decided for whatever reason that I am arguing against you.

Again, let me say this as simply as possible.

I am entitled to show you a picture of my dog. That is my right. You are entitled to not look at the picture of my dog. That is your right. Me showing you, is my attempt to get you to look. You not looking, is my failure to succeed.

Showing you something =/= you actually looking at it.

Read this sentence over and over and over until you finally get it.

Entitled to display only, yes.

Display = show. These words are literally synonyms. If you look up

Not to "show you ads", which is wording you keep using and which is plainly wrong.

Go use a thesaurus. I'm not kidding. Look right here in the thesaurus under the word "show" What do you find? The word "display". Then go here in the thesaurus under the word "display" What do you find? The phrase "for show".

I'm not wrong. Literally nothing I've said here is wrong. Now I'm backing it up with sources. Let's see you do the same.

"I have a right to show you this ad" is false in every way.

Except that it isn't. It's correct in every way, because you have the right to not look at an ad.

Your right to not look at something does not stop me from having the right to show you something.

"I have a right to display an ad" is a wholly different claim, and is correct.

Display is a synonym for show, and I've clearly demonstrated that by showing you a thesaurus. So no.

Your comments about a failure to understand basic English are hilarious.

Says the guy who needed to be linked to a fucking thesaurus to learn that "show" and "display" are literally synonyms.

You're trying to make a pedantic argument that display and show are somehow different. Which if accurate, your argument would still be ridiculously pedantic. Unfortunately for you, it's not even accurate. Display and show are not different, they're synonyms in the english language... and thus you're just wrong.