the problem is that they also say it is legitimate to charge for adfree access. while that is technically correct is has negative impact on society because it means only rich people (i exaggerate intentionally to make a point) can live ad free.

poor people have to suffer ads or be excluded, which is fine if the content is something not of interest to the general public, but it is not fine at all if it is eg facebook or youtube.

add to that that poorer segments of the population tend to be less well educated and thus more susceptible to manipulation.

if you force ads on people you must do so to everyone equally and block adblockers equally. any exchange of money creates a situation where only those that can afford it can protect themselves

if you charge for access you may not offer the same access for the price of watching ads. it should be either one or the other