They are solving it, over and over, for the past 20 years. The way so far is to find new ways to shove ads down enough peoples throats. And the internet can't stop complaining about them doing so, understandably.
> Honestly, that's not my problem.
So, yeah, maybe it kinda is. A state of war is mostly a lose-lose situation.
It's not lose-lose though. The creator loses, but I don't. If I don't care about a specific creator (and I obviously don't if I don't pay them and I block their ads) then I'm only losing access to the content they produce, which I value at essentially zero. So, really, I'm not losing anything. I just move on to the next YouTube video/podcast/whatever.
So I could argue that by using blockers I'm reducing the amount of advertising the populace will take and increasing the value of a given, lower level of advertising.
If you can't make a profit from your content because you're giving it away with blockable ads then you should stop doing that and do something else.
If I went to a Ferrari showroom and they said "Here's a free Ferrari, but you have to keep that advert we've put on the windscreen. If you take it off we'll have to stop giving Ferraris away.", then I am driving a beautiful ad-free Ferrari around now and the showroom can't do anything about it.