IMO it's better to do both. Ad supported websites are usually not worth spending time on, but on the occasion, you can still send a signal that you disapprove of this business model.
> the ads quality will help you decide about content quality.
Usually, the very presence of ads tell you the site content is most likely garbage.
Why should someone rely on correlation between content quality and ads quality, when she is capable of making decision based on an actual content?
1) https://www.techradar.com/news/iphone-xi Absolute trash, playing video, obtrusive ads, popup. Thank you but no, I don't want to consume shit even if content is stellar (actually it is not).
2) https://9to5mac.com/guides/iphone-11/ Reasonable, actually surprisingly readable. Awesome in terms of rivals.
3) https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066173/iphone-11-... Absolute trash, can't even see the content because of popup "we'll sell you soul after you accept".
---
Blocking ads is bad for everyone, because you still "consume" the website and it has incentive to continue while users are ok with that (not leaving). More likely your ad-block provider sells you visiting history to similarweb or so because nothing is free :)
Maybe it is so. But it is not enough to watch ads. Try for yourself, use adblocker for a month. You'll see that it is just plain impossible to use site with ads. You believe that ads is normal, and it is the only reason why you conform.