Actually that happened in 2008 and caused a terrible recession that effected more than just bankers.
Perhaps introducing regulation would be a better way of dealing with unscrupulous ad firms.
Because it's not like advertising is even that lucrative to begin with. Even Facebook, which is the king of ad monetization, only does about $120 annual ARPU for American users (and a lot less in other regions). That sounds like a lot until you realize the average user spends 38 minutes a day on the site. That's 30 cents per hour of use.
That comes with the clutter of the ads, the loss of privacy from all the tracking, much slower page loads, and lower content quality since the content algorithm's optimizing to maximize ad spend rather than user delight. I'd posit that the vast majority of Facebook users be much happier with $0.30 an hour for the much better ad-free experience.
And that's even in the most extreme ad-tilted case. Now consider a run-in-the-mill site like Reddit. Their annual ARPU is only about $1.00. That means Reddit's literally monetizing fractions of a penny per hour of use. I'm absolutely positive that all but those who are so cheap they're on verging on mentally ill, would pay one penny an hour to use Reddit.
The problem isn't ad-tech, it's not the surveillance, it's not even the data leaks or viruses; advertising itself is the problem. There's no amount of regulation that is going to make it "good," at best, it will remain a tumor on our free market system until it is excised once and for all. That is, assuming it doesn't kill it outright in its seemingly endless race to the bottom.
There is a part of the Internet where ads cannot/have not gone. Just use that. (Or the next one..)