Arn't those ads that you will never click on but happen to be related to your browsing context better than the ads you drive by every morning on the street?
Take all those sites you visit over a month, remove the ones you pay for directly from the list. Those remaining ones are the sites that will not be there without either ad support or direct charge.
2nd paragraph: those ads leverage their context, better than modern "targeted" ads. An ad for a tech product showing up on a tech site is more applicable than a dishwasher. Likewise an ad for a dishwasher on a homeware review site is better than an ad for a computer. The targeting is not providing anything useful.
Final paragraph: you are making the argument that the abuse of privacy is critical to the ad ecosystem, to the extent that in the absence of tracking then the entire ecosystem collapses. This is demonstrably false: when AdWords started it wasn't built on tracking and other such abuses of the end user, it was based on the context of the page the ad is embedded in.
The problem we've got to now, is that the ad networks started pushing "targeted" ads over non targeted to the extent that they have managed to convince everyone that the tracking abuse is necessary.
The days of cast a blind net that can't be attributed or optimized are well over -- those sites I asked you to consider will be very much hurt or gone if marketers can't target specific segments anymore (the blind saturation spend os not coming back).
One time I needed to buy a new washer+dryer. I did so, but I continued to get aggressively targeted washer/dryer ads for months, maybe a year.
Similar for furniture.
I am not a closet deck chair collector, but adtech decided I was.