I'm sitting here thinking about what the world would look like with a much smaller, more expensive, higher quality, less intrusive www, and I'm not sure I'm opposed to that; esp assuming anyone who wants to could still put up any legal content they want to at any time.
This assumes there isn't a flexible solution though. There is more than just the extremes here. If a company isn't innovative or flexible enough to think of a solution then it's their own fault if they go out of business.
Why do you assume that removing ad tracking would cut down on the total amount of money made on ads? Companies will still have ad budgets and they'll have to spend it somehow.
Companies don't have "ad budgets". Those depend on the efficiency of the ads. If your $100M spending on ads only generates $50M in value, you won't spend it.
Advertising has diminishing returns, when you decrease the efficiency of advertising, you decrease the spending.
Another way to think about it: line up every marginal $ you could possibly spend in ads, and sort it by efficiency from max to min. Find the point where efficiency = 100% (spending $1 more generates $0 marginal profit).
As a company, you'd buy all the ads until that point.
When you lower the efficiency of the ads, the intersection moves, lowering the marginal returns, and resulting in lower ad spending.
> Reduced economic activity, increased unemployment and poverty
"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!"
There are already non-ad-supported funding alternatives for small creators (like Patreon). Maybe the loss of an ad-supported web would finally create sufficient interest in development of micropayment and microfunding services to help the rest.
Edit: and maybe we can finally rid the web of clickbait and Taboola-style garbage content.
Ads work because you're trading something that is worth more to the publisher than to you.
Let's imagine a utility currency called bananas.
A piece of your attention is worth 0 bananas to you. But it is worth 10 bananas to a publisher.
The cost of creating and serving you a piece of content is 5 bananas to the publisher, and the value of it to you is 2 bananas.
If there were no ads, you'd be willing to pay 2 bananas to the publisher, which would not cover the cost. Therefore, the publisher and content creators would go out of business. You wouldn't be willing to pay the full cost (5 bananas), because the content isn't worth that much to you.
Outome:
You: 0 bananas
Publisher: 0 bananas
By seeing the ad, you generate 10 bananas of value to the publisher and content creator, while you get 2 bananas of value by receiving the content.
Outcome:
You: 2 bananas
Publisher: 10 bananas
Direct funding will never fully replace ad revenue.
The publisher just needs to deliver something that has 6 bananas of value to me to make this example work. That's exactly congruent with a web where high-value content is rewarded and clickbait and spam is not. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Consider all of the modern content industries that aren't primarily ad supported - movies, music, AAA video games, books. In this context the ad-supported nature of web content looks like an aberration, not an ideal to strive for.
Despite the "reduced economic activity", people seem fine with rules against lots of things -- e.g. spam and assassination markets. Besides, the money saved on web advertising doesn't get put under a mattress, the company can do something else like ... buy more TV ads or put it in an index fund. Haha, jk it's another raise for the CEO.