> More importantly, these days, you only find malware ads (consistently) on real shady sites.
> ...
> Sure, that has happened. But it's rare and again, it makes the news when it happens because of how rare it is.
I don't care how rare it is. It's common enough that this year alone, I've read about MSN, The New York Times, the BBC, the Dutch commercial broadcaster RTL, and other reputable sites distributing malware through major ad networks including Google.
If ad networks can't get their act together and value my security, I have no problem helping myself and boycotting their business. I don't need to investigate how to protect myself and help their business succeed if they don't have to do a better job stopping malvertising.
I am more than happy to support organizations and publishers when needed, and most of the content I consume today I either support through subscriptions, donations, or have switched to in-line advertising ("This article/edition/episode of <publication> has been made possible by <insert sponsor here>. <section about sponsor product>. <Actual content>.") But I have no love lost on advertising companies.
I realize this can't work for everyone, but it's time to adapt or die. Ad blocking is here, and given the terrible (at times deservedly so) reputation and status of advertising, it isn't going away. People dislike ads, and telling them they can't have what they want without being force fed ads will only direct them elsewhere.