Your analogy suggests that people often choose the lesser of two evils, which I agree with. If advertising is indeed "harmful", yet people still prefer it over

Your analogy suggests that people often choose the lesser of two evils, which I agree with. If advertising is indeed "harmful", yet people still prefer it over paying, it suggests that the financial burden of paying might be perceived as more "harmful" to them. Similarly, in your analogy, people might choose to reside in a polluted city rather than face homelessness, as they perceive the latter to be more "harmful".