Perhaps you are right. I can think of a couple additional considerations: First, it's worth acknowledging that some amount of desirable content already exists

Perhaps you are right. I can think of a couple additional considerations: First, it's worth acknowledging that some amount of desirable content already exists without advertising. My partner and I pay a subscription to three streaming services, a couple local newspapers, a town newsletter, and a physical news magazine. Besides the magazine they do not use ads to supplement their revenue. Having said that, I certainly agree that content that is only marginally valuable to people (who have money) would cease to be profitable and would therefore decrease in a world without advertising. Second, I think it depends on to what degree you believe that the ends can justify the means. How acceptable is it to manipulate consumers if it means you can achieve a more ethical end like giving them desirable content? Do those things cancel out? Personally I think it depends on how unethical one finds the advertising and how beneficial one finds the content. We already restrict certain kinds of advertising to children or for addictive substances. Many countries do not allow advertisements that encourage consumers to request brand-name medications from their doctors, and China has even banned advertisements for luxury products. Many people are concerned about advertising that creates unrealistic body expectations in children or promotes excessive levels of consumption. (Having worked on a DARPA project in a war zone a decade ago, I have spent a lot of time thinking about to what degree the ends justify the means, and I still have no good answers.)