This seems like you're assuming the conclusion. When you say, "readers won't pay for sites [and sites cost money]", there are only a few solutions, and they all

This seems like you're assuming the conclusion. When you say, "readers won't pay for sites [and sites cost money]", there are only a few solutions, and they all involve non-readers paying for the reader<->site interaction. As a result, your only solution is hand-wringing about ad blockers, which probably won't result in "advertisers are going to figure out a away around these things", because browsers have complete control over what is displayed. If you don't do this, things get more interesting: - "People won't pay for sites" -> make sites that they will pay for. - "non-readers paying for the reader<->site interaction" -> how can this be consensual, positive? (there are approximately seventy-three people, total, who enjoy web ads. Superbowl doesn't count.) - "[ad supported websites are a good thing]" -> can they be supported publicly? - "ad supported websites disappear" -> maybe in some cases that isn't bad. - "ad supported websites disappear" -> "most people will not pay to use a website" stops being true.