Rephrased and simplified, now you can push something no one likes except the advertisers if the advertisers pay for it, but in a future internet economy if you push something no one likes, you'd better be prepared to pay for it by yourself.
This is the most important point you're making.
The more likely result is the cost of providing a service over the internet continues to constantly implode; if the independent food blogger is motivated enough to spend $5/mo for internet "fame" there are numerous providers today who will take money in exchange for hosting. There may be a revolution in web design; a "cool looking complicated" web page might cost 5 megs of javascript and graphics and that might cost a blogger $5/mo if less than 1000 visit per month, but if the blogger gets famous for actual content (as opposed to web design) then once the blogger hits the 1M visits per month big leagues, shrinking the page from 5M to 5K might save the blogger a factor of a thousand in hosting costs. I don't think web designers will be happy about this; then again they won't be paying the bills. This will lead to something like the ancient "adobe flash" effect where the fancier a web page is designed and appears, the less likely it is to contain useful content, so it can be skipped, and the less complicated a page looks, the better the content it serves.
Another way the economics of the model would work is a trivial extension that probes all links at rendering time and if the link comes up as payment required the link is eaten. Currently I have to remember to ignore NYT links; in the future with the new extension I won't even see NYT links.
Another model that may develop is content that sellers want, like glowing "independent" reviews of a restaurant, might go away (relatively speaking) in a consumer oriented internet. This works on all levels from very small to very large, the advertisers pay for Gawker no matter if I look at it or not, given supposed levels of click fraud. Without the advertisers, if we don't look at Gawker it simply goes away. Rephrased and simplified, now you can push something no one likes except the advertisers if the advertisers pay for it, but in a future internet economy if you push something no one likes, you'd better be prepared to pay for it by yourself. That might have interesting socioeconomic class issues WRT widening income inequality; all billionaires will have blogs, no poor people will, and a way to filter college applications to make sure the "right" people are let in would be to require blog submission instead of traditional essay submission or the other socioeconomic filters we use now like extracurriculars or disaster tourism, etc.