[DrScientist]

So most content you consume isn't funded by advertising.

So I'm confused as to why you think advertising has driven the development of the internet[1]. Take for example investments in bandwidth - that's largely to meet the needs of TV/video and later gaming [2] - both with direct revenue streams independent of advertising ( and any advertising revenue they traditionally got has been eroded, not enhanced by the internet ).

The other major sites where things like Amazon or existing media outlets.

Note I don't include youtube in the above - as the most popular content is in effect stolen ( music, old TV shows etc ), and then resold with ads.

[1] Internet companies yes, the internet less so.

[2] When BBC iplayer went live in the UK ( ~2007 ) ISPs complained that it was taking up to a third of their entire bandwidth and they wanted the BBC to fund their capacity expansion. The BBC said, nope - it's you that made you bandwidth availability promises to your customers.

[EncomLab]

"So most content you consume isn't funded by advertising."

You are conflating the content and the delivery method. It's like saying "most of the stuff you buy can be delivered by a bicycle, so interstate highways are not important.

[DrScientist]

And who pays for the highway? The people paying their ISP bills - who did so because they wanted to watch the BBC/ Netflix etc , or shop at Amazon, read a newspaper online, bank online or play online games, or work from home - or the content you consume - all of which doesn't require advertising.

Sure Youtube and tik-tok consume huge bandwidth - but I'd argue if that was the only thing available on the internet then people wouldn't be paying their ISP bills.

The internet was growing massively before Google worked out how to make serious money with online ads.