Although the question is in the subheading, not the actual headline, I feel Betteridge's law of headlines fits: Do I feel guilty? No, I absolutely do not.
Although, technically, I don't block adverts as such - I block scripts. This has the side effect of blocking the overwhelming majority of adverts, and making the web far quicker, lighter and a whole lot more pleasant to browse. There is the small inconvenience of deciding when I need (whether permanently or temporarily) to allow scripts, or when to just move on - but I find it really is only a small one.
The advertising industry has well and truly fucked itself. It started off with a simple foot cannon, and after firing it complained that us, the users, were the cause of the problem - and it has gradually adjusted the settings on that foot cannon, firing it again at each step, until it's reached maximum yield, maximum strength. And still they blame us.
But trying to force me to accept annoying, intrusive adverts by compromising that security - noting that the adverts themselves may bring the payload? Not a bloody chance, you imbecilic fucktards.
Worth adding that along with the news that it's cheaper to get hacked than be secure, a similar mindset is probably prevalent in the whole online advertising industry. Why bother to incur the cost of cleaning up their act when it's probably cheaper to deal with the damage that might be caused?