Technology

then the only way they can pay for it is to serve outrageous amounts of ads

Have you ever heard about "donation" and "voluntary"? Wikipedia, for example, has no subscription, nor ads (except for banners asking for donation sometimes). Not everything has to orbit around money and capitalism, people can do things out of their will, people can seek other gains beyond profit (such as voluntary social working, passion, etc).

You know that people used to pay for newspapers right?

How much they costed? Some cents, differently from the 2-digit monthly costs of news outlets, which won't cover all the information needs, especially today when the world is more interconnected and "the flapping wings of a butterfly in Brazil can cause a typhoon in Pacific ocean" (the butterfly effect). Nowadays, things are interconnected and we must be informed about several fields of knowledge, which will be scattered across several, hundreds of different outlets. If one had too subscribe for every outlet out there, how much would it cost? Would the average monthly wage suffice for paying it? Especially vulnerable and emergent populations? (yeah, there are other countries besides USA and European countries; I live in Brazil, a country full of natural wealth but full of economic inequality, with millions of people having no restrooms at their homes nor access to water treatment, and that's the reality of a significant percentage of the global human population). That's my rant: not everybody is wealthy, and billions of people have to choose between paying subscriptions to be informed or buying food to eat, so... i dunno... they could keep... surviving. That's a reality, it doesn't matter If it's incoherent to you, but that's a reality. So every time you advocate for "news to cost money", you're advocating for keeping billions of people under the shadows of misinformation, even when this harsh reality is unbeknownst to you.