My consistent answer to the "if companies weren't allowed to spy on you and do other horrible shit, and if ad dollars dried up, all these sites would go away!" argument is that all those sites have value approaching zero anyway. So they go away. Oh well.
The Web loses 1% of its decent content, while the remaining 99% gets higher visibility, more funding, more interest/attention (which can improve quality, as in, say, collaborative communities like Wikipedia, or open source). The rest of the cost is the loss of a bunch of shit content that most people could/would replace with time-wasters like sudoku or Tetris or entertainment magazines, and carry on with life. Seems like a bargain to me.
You also couldn't have megalithic companies like Google that bait you into their ecosystem with "free shit" like Gmail and search completely bankrolled out of their other primary enterprise.
Google uses Ads to unevenly compete with every other software company on the planet. Google can buy your company and outpay you for engineers with what is essentially their financial fingernail clippings. The thing that's gained in this scenario is all of the talent that could be going to other things besides optimizing ads.
They use those advantages to compete with other companies and with volunteer efforts. That's another reason I'm not too worried about doom-and-gloom predictions of what would happen if we killed the ads (and spying-fed ML) golden goose: we do not know how much better protocols, free (open source) products, non-profit services (as in Wikipedia), and paid software/services would be without ad-fed giants sucking all the air out of the room at best, and deliberately using their advantages to kill things (competitors, protocols, et c.) at worst. I suspect all of those would be a whole lot better, absent the money-firehoses dependent on bad & dangerous behavior.
Excellent point, it is easy to forget the minor miracle of FOSS. Plus, without the ad revenues there would be no mega-corps vacuuming up all the new grads, so I would anticipate a significantly greater rate of innovation and FOSS contribution broadly.
There's even an interest or social-reward factor to participating in these kinds of things. Working on an open-protocol messaging client for free is a lot less rewarding when the userbase of the entire protocol is 1% or less of all online messaging, because most of that market's captured by closed platforms that forbid and/or discourage other clients, than when it works with 20+% of clients and even your non-geek friends are using the protocol, if not your particular client.
I truly think we couldn't launch something like the email protocol these days and have it gain traction, and I don't mean because of its flaws. I judge that a pretty crappy state of affairs, and I think the #1 cause is that it's so lucrative to keep your users in a position where you can track & spy on them very well, while avoiding leaking anything they're doing so that competitors can see it—IOW incentives are set up to greatly reward successful closed platforms while discouraging interoperability, so we get even more of that than we otherwise might.
> I truly think we couldn't launch something like the email protocol these days and have it gain traction...
Sadly it's worse than you expect here. Enter ElasticSearch.
The company behind the innovation you propose will piggy-back on open source projects (Lucene), add a novelty to it (clustering) and choose a permissive open-source license to encourage contributions. Once hitting a significant market penetration threshold, the project then will move to a mixed-source, enterprise license model with intentionally-crippled community versions (think Neo4j, JFrog, etc).
ElasticSearch isn't even alone here, it's just the most obvious example. I've actually been insisting for a long time that we need an Apache-licensed standard solution for clustering generic applications...something useful enough that anyone can connect part A & part B to get "clustered Lucene" instead of "ElasticSearch". Something reasonably deployable (read: is monitorable, has RBAC) without massive licensing costs (read: Neo4j). Not an easy problem, for sure.
The Web loses 1% of its decent content, while the remaining 99% gets higher visibility, more funding, more interest/attention (which can improve quality, as in, say, collaborative communities like Wikipedia, or open source). The rest of the cost is the loss of a bunch of shit content that most people could/would replace with time-wasters like sudoku or Tetris or entertainment magazines, and carry on with life. Seems like a bargain to me.