edit: Heck many of them they did not even give me free access to their journal to check references from the papers I was reviewing for them. I had to rely on SciHub to do so.
Would it be nice to be paid? Maybe, although to be honest I would rather keep money out of the process entirely -- I would like to continue having peer review be voluntary, and go further by also scrapping the publishing companies (who add nothing of value to any article I have written or seen in my entire career). In my field (cryptography) we run a preprint archive on a volunteer basis and it would not be a huge step to introduce a formal peer review process (there is already a minimal review process where the eprint vounteers reject papers that are obviously crap). We only bother with Springer because the European professors demand it (more precisely, their universities demand one of a handful of publishers, and Springer is least bad of the bunch).
https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/lofj0r/announcement...
Although it's the publisher who ultimately creates profit from the work.
However, would reviewers be paid, then the publisher would certainly charge the authors for this. No gain.
I see how one can justify reviewing for certain publishers, e.g. because they publish predatory journals or their shady business practices, but refusing to review any papers would be pretty much freeloading on the scientific community. Sure that's not an option.
You said not reviewing for predatory journals, so apply that to journals that Elsevier owns?