[oneJob]

Suggesting that a site agree to have either one or no ads seems a bit to comand-and-control for the Internet.

I agree with the other commenter that it seems reasonable for asightto a sight to block content if their ads are blocked, but do not see this as a sustainable solution. How can one know abead of time whether a site will or will not behave this way. The only time you'd know is if re-visiting. In that case, you're not likely to revisit. Seems like a lose-lose.

To me, the obvious answer is the option to opt out and either immediately paying a metered amount cash exchange, paying an end of month pro-rata subscription amount, or paying via a block exchange.

I think the end of month subscription, divied pro-rata, is the best option (anonymized of course). Its transaction cost is the middle of the two. It requires no direct relationship with the site prior to your visit. But most importantly, it allows for Spotify style consumer pricing. The consumer pays a flat fee for opting out of adverts. Then the content creators are encouraged to produce content that you will actually spend time with, not click-bait. This leaves the option on the table for each site to sell other content and material behind pay walls.

One last comment. Advertising is designed to influence and change behavior and opinions. In my opinion it is disingenuous to insist that a site visitor agrees to third party influence brokering to keep your lights on. It is my screen, my hardware, and my mind. I have every right to run adblocker. Similarly you have every right to decide bow to keep the lights on at your business. But I think there as been enough of this argument that consumers have unwittingly entered into some sort of relationship /agreement and should somehow wake-up and see that it's our proper responsibility to be good advert targets so the servers stay on.