I can't help but think of a comparison with print newspapers, which undoubtedly is where the idea of funding the internet through ads started. It made a certain sense: newspapers and magazines partially support themselves through adverts, so websites (particularly those with regularly updated content) could also rely on ad revenue.

But the big difference is that with a print newspaper, the customer pays to buy the paper, and the customer also has the choice to not look at the ads. I've got a print newspaper subscription. All the ads are clustered together on a few specific pages, not interspersed amongst the real content, which allows me to just skip right past them.

Ads on the internet, however, have become increasingly insidious over the years, often blocking access to the website's real content. And the more obnoxious they are and the harder they are for people to avoid, the more likely people are to utilise adblockers, because ultimately they want to see ads on the internet about as much as I want to read the adverts page in the newspaper (apart from the personal ads, those are a good giggle). Forcing people to look at content they don't want to look at is always going to end badly.

I'm quite happy for the ad-based internet to die. Websites with good content and good communities don't need revenue from adverts, because they will always have support from the communities they create. Most people aren't averse to donating even a few {currency of choice} to help keep something they love running, especially when they know it's not an extractive, exploitative business model.