Online advertising is pretty much always going to be a race to the bottom because everything a website does is just a dog and pony show to get people to watch ads. Why bother putting together quality content when churning out clickbait and low-effort crap generates far more clicks with far less work?
As an advertiser, I can tell you that clickbait is the worst place for my ad to live because people click away immediately.
Yeah I agree advertisers would rather have their ads next to quality content. Publishers don't always have the same incentives while it's easy to fill lots of inventory with at lower prices but make up for it in volume. A fine dining restaurant might make more money per diner than a McDonald's, but your average McDonald's probably makes way more money.
If something benefits McDonalds AND the fine dining places I enjoy, that's fine with me.
I don't have a problem with bad content out there, so long as there's a ton of really good content. For the great publications I read, I want them to be successful businesses so they can expand. A better ad market, or even a return to how it was before the dominance of FB/Google, would enable them to do that in a way that relying mostly on subscriptions hasn't.
So at the end of the day, it means I don't get to enjoy as much quality content from the publications that I love.
In my view, I end up with the best content when advertisers aren't going to one or two central places for their ad buys online. I'm actually an advertiser, myself (as just one part of my job). And I certainly know how my own buying practices have shifted over the past 14 years to now be 100% focused on FB/Google. Some of the Google money trickles down to other publications, and certainly this makes my job easier, but I don't think it's a good thing as somebody who also loves reading online.