this isn't a situation where the context exists whether it's paid for or not.
I'm not sure I'm following this part. This isn't a chick/egg situation. If there is no content, I have no reason to go to a site. If I don't go to a site, I don't care what ridiculous requirements they think they can impose on me to see their lack of content. If there is content, but the rules for seeing it are too much of a burden on me, then it might as well not exist.
Say some new site pops up. They have to have some reason for people to go there. They could offer samples of their content, they could make note of some famous writer that is working for them, they could have agreements for exclusive content from some company/industry/whatever. It doesn't matter what their angle is, any time I type their URL in the address bar, or click a link that goes there, we are starting a new negotiation for data exchange. If I don't like the rules they impose, I am free to leave. If content producers want to wall off their content, whether it's ads, scripts, flash, requiring an app be installed, cookies, or some other restriction, they are also free to do that
The whole damn point of the enterprise is to make some jingle.
This person is correct. Some of the discussion on this topic has gone down the path of: "The internet existed before ads!" While true, we're also very much enjoying the content that ad-revenue is bringing us today, ignoring that fact will not lead to a proper negotiation with the content producers to show some sensibility when it comes to monetizing our eyeballs.
I'm familiar with the history of how content on the internet has been financed. I also enjoy the increased amount of content that is available when compared to 1996. That said, there has to be some better way than what we have now. There is no content that is worth the drain created by scripts, trackers, flash, and the like.