We can play semantic games - “looking at” ads - or we can acknowledge that people pay for websites by allowing their browser to load ads, which is both true and the uncontroversial truth my comment was assuming.
Websites are obviously capable of returning that response or a 200 with text that states that the site declines to show the page...
I’m still curious how OP decides that OP is doing without.
This expectation that "you pay for content by looking at ads included" is a unilateral decision made by publishers who embed ads, and pushed by the advertising industry. We have every moral right to refuse looking at ads. And if you demand payment for the value you provide, do it the honest way: demand up-front. HTTP protocol has provisions for that too.
Not even close. There is only one truth here: nobody's charging users for anything. There are no payments.
Webmasters run servers that send pages to any client that asks, 100% free of charge. Advertisers pay webmasters to load these pages full of ads. What clients do with these ads is not under anybody's control. They might look at it. They might delete it. Who knows?
So any problems that arise here are between webmaster and advertiser. The ads aren't being displayed? People aren't clicking on the ads? Not making enough money? None of that is the user's problem. Nobody is obligated to solve these problems for them or even to help out by looking at or clicking on ads.
Web sites that require payment are more than welcome to return HTTP 402 Payment Required instead of sending a copy of the requested data for free.