If this'd happen en masse this allows competition in the market of reviewers, news sites, and social network sites. It also allows for fact checking (which perhaps even gets automated). The model which works is akin to seed fund, or open source development by contract. There'd be say a review in the make of a product X. In order for it to be made, Y USD is required. This is then gathered via crowd funding. Then those who paid get early access, week later its in the public domain. The model isn't even new. LWN uses it, to name an example.
Its such a new form that it is already illegal in most places, and common not taxed properly. If publishers are going the illegal route, there are better ways than illegal ads. Many sites with "sponsored posts" have been fined for doing this, and more sites likely will until the risk of doing so is higher than the profits.
Publishers are encouraged to find new ways to get revenue preferably outside of advertising so their revenue would not be at risk. You can only put so much sponsored content on your website before you start losing traffic , i.e. ad revenue and need to resort to shadier practices and this cycle continues until the website dies.b
Ads suck, I agree. I think the major complaint is malware- But that doesnt explain blocking google adsense, which doesnt allow offsite javascript, or facebook ads, or other 'trusted' ad networks. People just remove those ads because "Fuck ads" - Well, thats fine. But those decisions will obviously not just be candidly ignored- Publishers and content producers will react and find new ways to generate revenue where they lost it.