> We know there are users who want this because loads of people complain about paywalls.

That's a false dichotomy. "Users don't like paywalls, so they must like ads"...no, users don't like paywalls and also don't like ads.

(We can skip the whole "then how will content be paid for" argument that's been had thousands of times. There are plenty of solutions that aren't paywalls or ads.)

What solutions are you talking about? Premium subscriptions / donations like Ars Technica and the Guardian use? Those are the only major online publishers I can think of that aren't monetizing via ads, paywalls, or both.

I love paywalls to be honest. It gives me a taste of the quality of content to see if its worth my dollar a week. NYT also stopped hemmoragging cash by switching to a paywall subscription model, because just like since the dawn of printed content, people are generally fine with paying a tiny amount of cash to read something that’s not pure ad copy.

I'm fine with paywalls as well. I even pay for websites that I use heavily, if they allow me to, even though paying isn't necessary to access them.