What's interesting is that about half of the US have nearly zero disposable income and are living paycheck to paycheck, and their entertainment is presently bei

What's interesting is that about half of the US have nearly zero disposable income and are living paycheck to paycheck, and their entertainment is presently being paid for by their wealthier neighbors at the cost of collateral damage in advertising annoyance; This is a deadweight loss if you try to quantify that damage. Most people aren't willing to pay their equal share of the numbers, but most people also don't have the money to pay it now. It would be hilarious if you took the 20% of the country with plenty of disposable income and made them the subscription base for destroying advertising: it results in ads shown only to the people without the money to justify them, or sites which go subscription-only.