They can show me 200 ads per article if they want. But I don't want them to show me "more relevant ads" by tracking me. Simple as that. If they want to make their content subscriber-only that's fine. If they want to have an ad-funded tier without tracking ads that's fine. If privacy-intruding tracking ads is the only way to give advertisers enough "value" for the impressions to make the economics work - then that business model is a failure and they should just pick another.

The usual questions here are

"Shouldn't the option to give up (sell) some privacy in exchange for something of value (such as viewing an article) be a decision that is up to each visitor"?

And the answer is:

Absolutely not, no. Why? because I don't think the transaction is, or can be made clear to consumers wrt what is being exchanged.

Advertising in and of itself isn't bad. Degrading performance (via crazy Javascript that ad networks use) and degrading privacy (via tracking) is the problem.

Through subscriptions, one time purchases and donations.