If adblockers can afford to pay for ads, that means they have a business model, and the one and only adblocker business model is "pay to play", where companies pay adblockers to allow their ads through.
Nagware/scareware (pushing subscriptions on users, possibly with misleading claims) is also a business model I've seen used.
I honestly don't mind the "pay to play" model. It's a way to establish a healthy ad ecosystem. Ad blockers define what they consider acceptable, and collect money. They have an incentive to find a reasonable balance: The less restrictive they are, the more money they make, but the second they go over the line, users will jump to another ad blocker that's more restrictive.
I've intentionally and knowingly tolerated the "acceptable ads" from ABP until they started allowing the Outbrain/Taboola chumboxes. (There even were two versions of those, the normal one full of bright colors, tits and disgusting disease images, and a slightly toned down one for the "acceptable ads" users!)
Since those ads rely on making you psychologically uncomfortable (feeling like you're missing out) unless you engage with their worthless, misleading and unsatisfactory clickbait content, they're 100% unacceptable to me, and ABP lost a user.
If uBlock Origin offered an ad whitelist that only allows ad networks that a) serve only their own JavaScript, no third party crap b) only serve static text and re-encoded static, non-animated images c) have some meaningfully enforced editorial standards, d) have some privacy oversight and follow tracking opt-outs, I would definitely give it a chance. I don't mind supporting web sites and content creators, and I don't mind seeing relevant ads (which can usually be targeted based on the content I'm looking at just fine).
I do mind having my fan try to reach escape velocity due to crappy JS, getting served malware and exploits, random "this site is trying to play DRM protected video" popups indicating that something is trying to do fingerprinting, 300 different companies getting my browsing data and 20 of them executing code in my browser (code that they haven't written themselves but have been handed by an intermediary of an intermediary), and last but not least graphic images of diseased body parts. Solve these problems, and I won't need to use an ad blocker. Don't solve these problems, and I will put protecting myself over your revenue.
I also mind having to constantly explain to my parents why the new cool product or shop they saw an ad for is an utter scam, and how exactly they'll lose money if they fall for it. I also mind having to constantly scrape crapware and malware from my friends' and relatives' computers, _including Chromebooks_. As long as ads lead to that, I have no choice but to deploy ad blockers.
> If uBlock Origin offered an ad whitelist that only allows ad networks that a) serve only their own JavaScript, no third party crap
Wait, why would an acceptable ad network have JavaScript at all? Maybe a minimal, pre-approved bit of JS to help the network understand where the ad is being placed, but even that is questionable.
Frankly, I consider it somewhere between bizarre and obviously wrong for any serious website that needs to follow HIPPA, PCI, or any other reasonable security standard to allow un-audited third party JS at all.
