What I find most distressing about all the debate re ad-blocking is the built-in assumption that advertising is the only way we could possibly fund content crea

What I find most distressing about all the debate re ad-blocking is the built-in assumption that advertising is the only way we could possibly fund content creation on the web: that it all just comes down to compromising on what the "acceptable" level of advertising is. I don't accept that premise. The debate should be framed as "Adverting: is it good or bad?" but somehow we let it slide into "Advertising: should it be extremely obnoxious or slightly less obnoxious?" Advertising changed the web, it made it worse in most ways -- it encourages a constant stream of low-value content that serves as a framing device for banner slots. If advertising magically disappeared one day, I think nearly all kinds of website would be able to find a revenue model that works (in most cases it would boil down to "make less content, of higher value, that people would actually be willing to pay for.") The only types of sites that literally could not survive without an advertising-based revenue model are the clickbait listicle aggregators of other peoples' content. Which, yeah, I'm kind of okay with. People would still find their way to their memes and cat videos, they'd just do it on a hobbyist level. Ultimately we'd all, publishers and end users alike, be better off without ads.