If that's the only alternative that the brilliant minds at the Big G can come up with, then that sounds fine to me. I'm sure they can think of something more creative though, like "make a product and sell it."
Without the snark, what I mean specifically is that I will never browse the web without an adblocker, no matter how "fast", "clean from malware", "acceptable", or "organic and free-range" Google claims their ads are. It's just out of the question. They take up my bandwidth, use my device battery power, execute code on my machine that I don't need, jeopardize my privacy, and put my operational security at risk. I personally also think advertising is distasteful and manipulative. So, I empower myself to prevent this unwanted interference to my mental and digital autonomy to the greatest possible extent.
I don't really sympathize with sites that "rely" on ad revenue either. The Web existed before them, the Web will exist after them.
> And I'm having trouble understanding how you say their conclusion (which simply said it "may" decrease the incentive) is so bizarre. Are you assuming that everyone out there views ads the way you do?
I made a different comment about why the conclusion is bizarre to me: I don't think ad-block users are sensitive to changes in ad speed, that they wouldn't be able to notice in the first place on account of using an ad-blocker. Non-ad-block users probably don't care in the first place, and if they do, they install an ad-blocker for the myriad other reasons that happen to include speed.