Not ironic, at all. How are you comparing stoping a transaction from a decentralized network to slander of businesses on a forum? I can't wait to hear this...
The ads and small-output transactions are both messages, that some people think are annoying/useless and others think is their right to speak or hear unfettered. The reference client and ABP block the respective messages by default. When it comes to bitcoin, you support circumventing the default restrictions; but when it comes to advertising you think Theymos is in the wrong for trying to circumvent them. When you say "you know to protect ads that slander businesses" you seem to be implying that speech
one person finds useless or distasteful doesn't have a right to be protected. This is exactly opposite your stance in the bitcoin transaction world, where you think everyone should have a right to have their transactions confirmed no matter what anyone else thinks of them.
Sure, it's not a perfect analogy, but the basic principles are similar enough that I find it ironic you would take two different positions. I'm sure you still disagree, and that's fine.
To go more on-topic, Theymos is selling a service, the display of advertisements, and has some business obligation to do that to the best of his ability. Argue about how he shouldn't have gotten into the ad business if you want, but the facts are that he's already in it, and it requires a certain amount of development time that could be spent on something else like 2FA, to meet that obligation.
