I lean toward agreeing with you. Sure. I'd rather view ads than pay. BUT! Why I'm setting up a pi-hole isn't about ads in and of themselves. It's the intrusive and misleading ads. It's the tracking and difficulty opting out of targeted advertising.
I don't have a problem with tv ads for shampoo that I won't ever buy. I do have a problem with a web page that surrounds a legit news article with bizarre ads with cockimamy health claims, and links that don't go where they claim to go.
If a website says, "Pay up or look at these 'spider veins' ads" that's entitlement, arrogance and open contempt. That's not treating me like a desired customer.
Nope. People _say_ they want to pay an equitable price for content rather than viewing ads because that's exactly what they prefer and would do.
The problems are:
- Your definition of 'equitable price' when we live in a time where no single human can digest across their lifetime even a single year's worth of the glut created.
- The quality is universally garbage and as an information consumer you'd still have to spend your resources in thinking critically whether to accept and update your assessment of the information. If you're consuming 'content' as escapism well then you still might consider a more cost-effective route such as heroin or even direct neural stimulation.
- Consumers rightfully work out the long game plan of content creators. They'd like to not view ads but know that once you've climbed above the threshold of starving artist you'll get greedy and the ads will come right back. Always. No exception.
