> If you provide less monetisation for content creators

But I don't want to "consume content", I want to "get information". Most "content creators" don't provide any info. Or at best there is some info there but you have to watch an hour worth of video for the 20 useful seconds.

You end up with less trash/monetization content and more content from passionate people writing about what they love/like/do for the joy of sharing.

But this does not sustain the chocolate factory.

You could reward the type of monetization that is correlated to high-quality content and penalize the type that is associated with spam.

Site offers extra paid content or services, or takes donations? Rank up. Ads? Neutral or rank down based on type of ads. Affiliate links? Rank way down.

Less content is fine when the issue is too much junk content. Content would then be created by enthusiasts instead of businesses

We can't even answer out fucking phones because of these people and an ad blocker is pretty much a requirement to make the web even remotely usable.

They're already pushing out content to replace it with more fucking ads!

There is legitimately nothing good about them. At all.

I don't want "content", some generic attention grabbing placeholder around which they spam ads. I don't want some professionally made lowest common denominator product designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. I want creations with heart and soul. I want to read the opinions and writings of real human beings, not corporate PR articles with cleverly disguised pitches at the end.

People who don't have enough intrinsic motivation to create regardless of financial reward probably aren't producing anything of value. That basically excludes every for profit website out there that would be "killed" by less monetization. Killing them off is a good thing.