Until content publishers go out of business or lock their content behind paywalls, and the "ad free experience" only has hobbyist blogs and amateurs.

A lot of low rent internet chum would also disappear. So maybe that's a fair trade off, but it will also hurt your local newspaper pretty badly.

Nobody has really come up with a good sustainable alternative to ad-funded content for a lot of publishers. Brave is one of many attempts at this, too bad it smells a lot like a crypto currency scam.

> A lot of low rent internet chum would also disappear. So maybe that's a fair trade off, but it will also hurt your local newspaper pretty badly.

Wow, we have _completely_ different understandings of the value of the Internet. To me, the (realized) promise of the Internet is not just an additional channel for established media, it's the decentralization of publishing in the first place. "Low rent internet chum" is a consequence of that, but IMO it's been far more than worth the tradeoff.

Ad networks have been a key enabler of decentralized publishing. Anyone can sign up to an ad network and start getting paid for clicks. No traditional gatekeepers there. So I'm not sure where you get this idea that what I'm saying is in any way contradictory to what you said.

The implication of the above comment is "low rent chum will die (good) but establishment channels like newspapers will also die (bad)". I'm saying that the decentralized "low rent" stuff is the value of the Internet imo, not providing another medium for channels that already exist.

> but it will also hurt your local newspaper pretty badly.

I already pay for my local newspaper (and most of their content is behind a paywall anyway).