I'm not saying people aren't entitled to make some money, but it clearly incentivizes user hostile behavior.
Maybe make it an option because legitimate sites like journalism also use this model.
Their only remaining incentive is to be good enough that people keep paying for the service.
Google on the other hand makes money off ads (whether on the search results page itself or on the spam sites), so spam sites are at best considered neutral and at worst considered beneficial (since they can embed Google ads/analytics, and make the ads on the search results page look relatively good compared to the spam).
Black-hat SEO has been around since the early days of search engines and they managed to keep it at bay just fine. What changed isn't that there was some sudden breakthrough in malicious SEO, it's that it was more profitable to keep the spammers around than to fight them, and with the entire tech industry settling on advertising/"engagement" as its business model, the risk of competition was nil because competitors with the same business model would end up making the same decision.
The same reason is behind the neutering of advanced search features. These have nothing to do with the supposed war on spam/SEO, so why were they removed? Oh yeah because you'd spend less time on the search results page and are less likely to click on an ad/sponsored result, so it's against Google's interests and was removed too.
Super tinfoil hat to believe Google wants to send users to blog spam websites (e.g. beneficial to Google).
Anytime there is money to be made, there is an effectively infinite amount of people trying to game the system.
There can be other models for making money, but methods that really on casting a wide net and driving low quality traffic is the thing that shouldn't be indexed or at least labeled as such
[1] https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm...